NO. 8 MAMMALIAN FAUNA, BADWATER AREA — GAZIN 25 



The Swift Current Creek ^ specimen, however, is distinctly less quad- 

 rate, and the metaconule, rather than occupying the posterolingual 

 angle of the tooth, is between the protocone and metacone. More- 

 over, there appears to be a hypocone, or at least a well-developed 

 crest, posterior to the protocone. The structural resemblance of this 

 tooth to both the leptochoerids and diacodexids was noted by Russell 

 and Wickenden, Possibly further evidence bearing on the relation- 

 ship suggested (Gazin, 1955) for these two groups is to be found in 

 the Swift Current Creek beds when the fauna from there is better 

 known. 



Apriculus praeteritus will not be confused with the Helohyusf, sp. 

 described by Peterson (1934) from the Lapoint Duchesnean. Although 

 direct comparison in details of teeth is precluded by the different 

 nature of the known material, the disparity in size is alone conclusive, 

 at least as far as species are concerned. The Lapoint specimen, as 

 indicated b}' Peterson, is rather close in size to Helohyus lentus, and 

 although the premolar, disregarding the small parastylid, is rather like 

 that in Bridger H. lentus, the molar is not particularly close. The 

 paraconid in Mi, as shown in Peterson's illustration, is much too far 

 forward. Helohyus in general does not show the crest extending 

 posteriorly from the protoconid or the triangular-shaped basin formed 

 between this crest and crista obliqua observed in the Lapoint Mi. In 

 Helohyus the low crista obliqua extends forward to a much more 

 buccal position on the trigonid, with a well-formed basin posterolingual 

 to this crest. 



I strongly suspect that the Lapoint specimen is a very small en- 

 telodont. The crest pattern of the molar which Peterson so clearly 

 described and as outlined above, while unlike that of Helohyus, can 

 be clearly, though weakly, discerned in unworn first and second low^er 

 molars of Archaeotherium. In a footnote Peterson called attention to 

 the resemblance of P4 to that in Archaeotherium, but discredited such 

 a relationship by the presence of a paraconid on Mi, This reasoning 

 I cannot understand, as the lingual portion of the trigonid of not too 

 well worn lower molars in the Oligocene form usually shows two 



" Omitting consideration of the Saskatchewan Swift Current Creek beds and 

 fauna in my review of upper Eocene artiodactyls was a regrettable oversight and 

 should in no way be regarded as implying a lack of significance. The materials, 

 though fragmentary, give us the only glimpse so far obtained of the nature of 

 the upper Eocene fauna at a latitude so far north. It is only from such Canadian 

 discoveries that speculation by various paleontologists on the possibility of more 

 northern origins of early Tertiary groups with obscure ancestry may be 

 evaluated. 



