Douglass : Dromomeryx. 475 



of the Miocene deer with very brachydont molars ; it occurs in Dicro- 

 cenis, Drcmotheriuvi, and Amphitraguliis, as well as in Palaomeryx. 

 All the American species that I have seen differ considerably in their 

 dentition from any of the European genera, and appear to possess a 

 different type of antler from any, perhaps a more primitive one. 

 Unfortunately all the known specimens are more or less damaged in 

 this part; all appear to be in velvet, unbranched, and without burr, 

 but whether this was a permanent condition it would be unsafe to say. 

 The specimens in this museum, though numerous, are mostly frag- 

 mentary, and the correlation of parts more or less uncertain. For 

 the present, therefore, it is better to leave this group of brachydont 

 American species under Palceomeryx.'''' 



In the paper '^ from which I have just quoted, Matthew proposed 

 MerycodonfidcB as the name of a family equal in rank with the Bovidce, 

 Antilocapridce, and Giraffidce in the Bovidce typica. In this new 

 family he put the two extinct American genera Merycodus and Blasto- 

 meryx — not including the species which are described in the present 

 paper as Dromomeryx. These he put in the family Cervidce. 



In a more recent paper by Matthew is the following : ^^Blastomeryx 

 antilopimis Scott, 1894, and B. borealis Cope, 1878, with Palceomeryx 

 americanus and madisonius Douglass, 1900, belong to a larger, more 

 brachydont phylum of Cervidce, with supraorbital horns (or antlers) 

 of peculiar type. They are distinct from Blastomeryx, probably also 

 from the true Palceomeryx, but at present are of uncertain relation- 

 ship."i« 



Without a long and painstaking study of the Ruminantia I would 

 not wish to give an opinion as to the relationship of Dromomeryx. I 

 may say, however, that I agree with Dr. Matthew in his last state- 

 ment, quoted above. Dromomeryx at present undoubtedly stands, like 

 Antilocapra, by itself, and it may well be that the ancestors of the 

 latter were no very distant relatives of the former, but the proof is 

 wanting. As before implied the general skeletal structure of the two 

 is very similar, the most striking differences being in the teeth, the 

 brain-case, and the proportions of the bones. For comparison with 

 Palceomeryx a re-study of the European in connection with the Ameri- 

 can forms is needed. The ruminants however illustrate very well the 



^'^ Ibid., pp. 103-104. 



'^"Osteology oi Blastomeryx and Phylogeny of the American Cervidne," Bull. 

 Amer. Mus. Nat. Hist., Vol. XXIV, June, 1908, p. 546. 



