PLEISTOCENE VERTEBRATES FROM CUMBERLAND CAVE 



87 



author (Gazin, 1933). This comparison was greatly aided by addi- 

 tional material secured by Gidley subsequent to his report, which 

 mcluded a lower jaw (fig. 50a), U.S.N.M. no. 7993, mth teeth and 

 lower premolars (fig. 506), U.S.N.M. no. 8006, belonging to another 

 individual. 



In a general way certain outstanding characters seen in the fossil 

 dentition, as large size, hypsodonty, and proportionally large pre- 



FiQUEE ^<d.—Euceratherium(:i) amerkanum (Gidley): Superior cheek teeth, P'-M^, type specimen 

 (U.S.N.M. no. 7622), lateral and occlusal views. Three-fourths natural size. Cumberland Cave Pleisto- 

 cene, Maryland. 



molars, are strongly suggestive of the eland and likewise contrast it 

 with the larger hving bovids of North America. A more detailed 

 examination, however, with particular regard for the structure of the 

 premolars, w^arrants removing the fossil form from Taurotragus. 

 The differences seen in the upper molars are not many and not of 

 great importance when we consider the variabihty of the pattern of 

 these teeth in bovid forms. The external styles are better developed 

 m the fossil, as noted by Dr. O. P. Hay (1920), and these teeth are of 

 somewhat greater size. The upper premolars are particularly robust, 

 are apparently more hypsodont, and have a less compressed postero- 

 external style. 



In the lower molars Mi is noticeably wide transversely and M3 

 relatively narrow as compared with the modern eland; differences in 

 the lower premolars appear to be more significant, however. Tiie 

 premolars are distinctly more hypsodont. The crown of Pj is more 

 complexly folded, resembling in development a P3 in Ovihos. The 



