184 



BULLETIN 16 9, UNITED STATES NATIONAL MUSEUM 



In Gidley's description of the calcaneum (1919, p. 552), "tibial face" 

 is probably a misprint for "fibular facet." The type calcaneum is 

 somewhat damaged in this region. A specimen collected after Dr. 

 Gidley's paper was pubUshed shows that in C. montanensis the fibular 

 facet on the calcaneum is relatively quite as well developed as in 

 C. ferox. His statement, "cuboid with facet for the astragalus, 

 navicular and ectocuneiform arranged horizontally, nearly parallel and 

 merging into each other" also appears to involve a misprint or lapsus, 

 since it is inconsistent with his accurate figures and is either not clear 

 or not correct. As his figures show, the astragal ar facet is at an angle 

 of nearly 90° to the navicular facet, and the latter and the ectocunei- 



FiGURE 39.— Oaenodon montanensis (Gidley), U.S.N.M. no. 8302, foot bones: a, Lunar and scaphoid, dorsal 

 view; b, part of tarsus, dorsal view; c, parts of the three median digits of pes, dorsal view. Natural size. 

 (After Qidley, 1919, figs. 7 and 8.) 



form facet are approximate!}^ in the same vertical plane. Comparison 

 of several specimens of C. ferox does not confirm the supposed differ- 

 ence in tliis species in the separation and different outline of the two 

 last mentioned facets on the cuboid. These facets are much less 

 definite in the available specimens of C.jerox ^^ than in C. montanensis, 

 but differ little in outline. 



Dr. Gidley's important conclusion that the present limb bones are 

 closely similar to those of Claenodon ferox is certainly correct and is 

 only emphasized by these slight corrections of details. The C. mon- 

 tanensis material is Uttle over half of the size of that of C. ferox, and 

 it differs in details of proportion, strength of processes, or rugosities. 



»i The artist has made their outline far too distinct in Gidley, 1919, pi. 28, fig. 2a. 



