2 SMITHSONIAN MISCELLANEOUS COLLECTIONS VOL. 139 



first as a species of Prototomus and included it together with "Pro- 

 totomus" jarrovii (=Pelycodus jarrovii) in the carnivores with 

 Prototomus (=Sinopa) viverrinus. In 1875 (p. 16), however, he 

 proposed the name Apheliscus, regarding it as "nearly allied to Panto- 

 lestes," although at the same time he thought that the molar teeth 

 suggested a relationship to Anaptomorphus, noting, nevertheless, that 

 the premolars were "totally different." Cope's statement that the last 

 lower molar lacked a heel would seem highly significant, but, if the 

 meaning is here properly interpreted, it is surely an error, as may be 

 seen from his illustration (1877, pi. 45, fig. 18). In addition to the 

 described condition of the talonid of the third molar, Cope noted as 

 distinctive in comparison with Pantolestes only the simplicity of the 

 inner anterior tubercle of the lower molars. 



Matthew (1918), in naming the family Apheliscidae, was very dubi- 

 ous as to its affinities, and while referring it to the Insectivora, con- 

 sidered that it might well be condylarthran, primate, or creodont. It 

 should be noted, however, that at the time of his writing, such genera 

 as Aphronorus, Bessoecetor, and Phenacodaptes were not known. 

 Only large and comparatively aberrant Pentacodon, which he had 

 recognized as a pantolestid insectivore (1909), and the Eocene mem- 

 bers of the Pantolestinae were available for comparison. 



Simpson (1937a) demonstrated the most logical arrangement for 

 the pantolestids and pentacodonts, while adding the Paleocene genera 

 Bessoecetor and Aphronorus to their respective subfamilies. He 

 noted, moreover, the resemblance of Apheliscus to the Pentacodonti- 

 nae in characters of the fourth premolars, but considered, however, 

 that the molar structure was widely different. Nevertheless, his sug- 

 gestion that Apheliscus might be an offshoot of the same stock seems 

 particularly pertinent and certain of the lacking evidence for such an 

 hypothesis may lie in Phenacodaptes. The family, however, was re- 

 tained incertae sedis, questionably in the Insectivora in his 1945 

 classification. 



Saban (1954), evidently following Simpson's suggestion, included 

 the Apheliscidae with the Pantolestidae in the superfamily Pantoles- 

 toidea. His including Shikama's Endotheriidae, created for the Man- 

 churian Jurassic Endotherium, as a subfamily of the Pantolestidae, 

 however, seems surprising. McDowell (1958) rejected certain fea- 

 tures of Saban's classification and in discussing the family Aphelisci- 

 dae regarded it as incertae sedis, but noted that the teeth are "recon- 

 cilable with those of Mixodectes." McKenna, on the other hand, in a 

 field conference guidebook (1955) has the Clark Fork species Aphelis- 

 cus nitidus listed as a condylarth. 



Older but more recently described Phenacodaptes sabulosus is from 



