Peterson: Uinta Titanothere Dolichorhinus. 137 



The metacarpals in proiiorlion to the carpals, are shorter than in 

 Diplcceras. The nietapodial keel of Mc. II is less ol)li(iue to the long 

 axis of the bone than that in Diploceras, otherwise the differences 

 between these two genera are slight. The head of Mc. Ill differs from 

 that in Titanolherium by having the ulnar portion more squarely 

 truncated, and by the much smaller size of the facet for Mc. II on the 

 radial angle. Mc. IV' presents only slight differences from the corre- 

 sponding bone in Titanotheriiim. In its general details Mc. V is quite 

 similar to the same bone in Diploceras, but proportionally shorter. 



As in Diploceras and the Titanotheres generally, the phalanges are 

 short, broad, and depressed. 



In comparing Professor Osborn's restoration of Dolichorhinus'' with 

 the above described fore limb it appears that the foot of the present 

 specimen is shorter, while the radius, ulna, and scapula are longer. 



Measurements. 



Total length of scapula *. . . . 337 mm. 



Total length of humerus head to distal end 285 



Total length of ulna 340 



Total length of radius 295 



Total length of manus, approximately 200 



Height of tarsus at unciform and cuneiform 59 



Transverse diameter of carpus at proximal row of carpals 90 



Greatest length of Mc II 116 



Greatest length of Mc III 124 



Greatest length of Mc IV 109 



Greatest length of Mc V 95 



Since writing the above paper I received from Dr. William K. 

 Gregory some outline tracings of material representing Dolichorhinus 

 in the American Museum of Natural History, These tracings are 

 especially welcome, since they show that there are considerable 

 variations in the length of the limb of the genus Dolichorhinus. The 

 humerus,* and the radius, and ulna of specimen No. 1961 in the 

 American Museum very neatly agree in general length with those of 

 No. 2865 in the Carnegie Museum, while the fore foot of the former 

 specimen is considerably longer than in the latter. On the other 

 hand the specimen No. 13164 (American Museum) from the (?) 



' Bull. Amer. Mus. Nat. Hist., Vol. XXIV, 1908. p. 612. 



8 There seems to be a better development of the deltoid ridge of the humerus 

 in No. 1961, in the American Museum than in No. 2865 in the Carnegie Museum. 



