FORT UXIOX OF CRAZY MOUXTAIX FIELD, MOXT. 



177 



<;idedly smaller and slenderer canines, limb and foot bones smaller 

 and of slenderer proportions throughout. 



I am at a loss to understand the supposed distinction of the inner 

 cusps of P^~"* as I find no specimen identified by Matthew as Cjerox 

 that has those teeth. The number of specimens in which the canines 

 are surely associated with cheek teeth is limited, but the measurements 

 and ratios shown in table 37 can be taken from the collection. 



Table 37. — Measurements of canines and molars of species of Claenodon 



A.M.ISr.H. no. and species 



Ml 



Mi 



C 



M> 



Ml 



3268 (type C.ferox) 



2456 (neotype C. conugatus) . 



16545 (ref. C. corrugatus) 



16001 '(ref. C. corrugatus) 



32711 (ref. C.ferox).. 



3266 ' (ref. C. corrugatus) 



Mm 

 12.9 

 8.3 



11.2 



Mm 

 11.1 

 10.5 

 10.0 



Mm 



Mm 



12.5 



1.16 

 0.79 

 1.12 



10.0 

 10.2 



11.0 

 10.6 

 11.2 



0.62 



0.91 

 0.96 

 0.78 



' Not identified by Matthew, Pale. Mem., earlier references. 

 » Doubtfully referred by Matthew, Pale. Mem. 



No. 3271, with the smallest cheek teeth, has the largest canine 

 among the lower jaws, and no. 2456, with the largest cheek teeth 

 among the lower jaws, has the smallest canine. Indeed among the 

 lower jaws the relative canine size varies inversely with the cheek- 

 tooth size, the exact opposite of the hypothesis on which the species 

 are separated. Among the upper jaws the largest cheek teeth are 

 associated with the relatively largest canine, medium-sized cheek 

 teeth with the relatively smallest canine, and the smallest cheekteeth 

 with relatively middle-sized (but in ratio nearer the relatively largest) 

 canine. The samples are too small for extended statistical study, 

 but it is quite obvious that the smaller individuals are not charac- 

 terized by relatively small canines, and hence that the supposed 

 specific distinction in this character is invalid. Beyond that no 

 regular correlation of gross size, or cheek-tooth size, with relative 

 canine size is suggested or possible on these data. It is suggested 

 that canine size is extremely variable and that both large and small 

 cheek teeth may be associated with both relatively large and small 

 canines. There is perhaps a sexual distinction in relative canine size 

 in addition to or instead of in absolute cheek-tooth size, but this is a 

 hypothesis that the data are inadequate to test. 



The smaller premolars and slenderer skeleton supposedly distinctive 

 of C. corrugatus cannot be more exactly checked, and the results are 

 similar: they are smaller, because they belong to smaller individuals, 

 but there is no apparent correlation of relatively smaller premolars 

 or relatively slenderer limbs wdth the smaller individuals. 



