134 Annals of the Carnegie Museum. 



anterior exit of the vertebrarterial canal of the axis appear to be the 

 same in the two specimens. The cervical series as a whole appear to 

 be slightly shorter in the specimen preserved in New York. No other 

 comparison is possible, as there is no description of these parts in 

 Professor Osborn's paper. 



M EASUREMENTS. 



Atlas, greatest antero-posterior diameter 105 mm. 



Atlas, greatest transverse diameter, approximately 180 " 



Atlas, greatest vertical diameter 88 " 



Axis, antero-posterior diameter of centrum, odontoid process included. . 95 " 



Axis, height, including neural spine 125 • " 



Cervical region, total length, approximately 395 " 



The Fore Limb. 



The fore limb of the specimen under description is especially well 

 preserved. 



The Scapula. — The scapula is very little, if any, shorter than in 

 Diploceras, as figured by Peterson (/. c, p. 42),^ but its general outlines 

 differ from those shown in the latter genus. The lower portion of the 

 coracoid border is more deeply notched than in Diploceras. The 

 coracoid border above the notch is more curved forward, as is also 

 the glenoid border. The general outlines of the scapula are on the 

 whole more suggestive of the Rhinocerotidse than the Titanotheres. 



The Humerus. — The humerus is short and heavy. The bone is 

 comparatively shorter than in Diploceras. Unfortunately, the greater 

 tuberosity is broken on the postero-lateral face, but near the deltoid 

 groove the superior face is complete and indicates very plainly that 

 the tuberosity is not as high as in Diploceras. The lesser tuber- 

 osity accords more nearly with that shown in the latter genus. The 

 deltoid groove is also of about the same size in the two genera here 

 compared. The deltoid ridge is less prominent in Dolichorhinus, 

 while the distal end of the bone is quite nearly alike in the two genera. 



The Radius and f//wa.— The radius and ulna are much shorter than 

 in Diploceras and proportionally also much heavier. There is a 

 tendency to coossification of the two bones in the present specimen, 

 the shaft is rounder, and the articulation for the humerus is less 

 deeply excavated than in Diploceras. In comparing the ulna of the 



^ The length of the scapula of Diploceras is conjectural, as the upper and lower 

 portions do not pertain to the same bone. 



