96 Annals of the Carnegie Museum. 



and Ilypcrtragnliis. The exit of the infra-orbital foramen cannot be 

 definitely located. 



The femur is much mutilated, especially in the region of the shaft. 

 The head cannot be regarded as small ; on the contrary, it is of pro- 

 portionate size, well rounded, and set on a distinct neck. The pit 

 for the ligamentum teres is shallo\\^ The great trochanter does not 

 extend much above the head, it is not of great transverse diameter, 

 though well proportioned fore-and-aft, and there is a deep trochanteric 

 fossa. The second trochanter is quite prominent and the shaft in this 

 region perhaps has a greater antero-posterior than transverse diameter. 

 Distally the condyles are crowded close together, due to crushing. 

 The rotular trochlea is very well defined, but its internal and external 

 borders are nearly equally prominent. 



The distal end of the calcaneum is rather delicately constructed. 

 The sustentacular facet is not prominent and the cuboid facet is very 

 oblique fore-and-aft. The tuber is lost. The fibular facet is promi- 

 nent and occupies a more lateral position than in Leptomeryx, and 

 the ridge separating the latter facet from that of the astragalus is 

 more prominent than in the Oligocene genus. The astragalus is high 

 and narrow; its height being equal to that of this bone in Leptomeryx, 

 but it is narrower. The proximal trochlea is quite broad and other- 

 wise divided, as in Leptomeryx, but the proximal and distal portions 

 are divided by a longer and more decided neck, and the cuboid articu- 

 lation is decidedly narrower than in Leptomeryx. 



The limb and foot structure of Leptotragiilus is not well known. 

 Professor Scott was not entirely certain that his paratype pertains to 

 the same genus {I.e., p. 480). Nevertheless it appears quite certain 

 that the genus possessed a tetradactyl manus and didactyl pes, such 

 as Scott describes, when we recall the tetradactyl manus and didactyl 

 pes of the hypertragulids of the Oligocene. 



When the dentition and certain cranial characters of Leptotragiilus are 

 compared with these elements in the Oligocene genera, there appears to 

 be greater assurance of the taxonomic position of this Uinta genus. 

 In the first place there does not appear to be the slightest indication 

 of an elongation or a lateral compression of the upper cheek-teeth in 

 Leptotragiilus, or other Uinta genera, such as we should expect from 

 what we see in the Oligocene Poehrotherium, or in camels of later 

 horizons. In the second place we see that, while the upper teeth of 

 Leptotraguiiis, as now known, arc very closely like those of Leptomeryx 



