FOKT UNION OF CRAZY MOUNTAIN FIELD, MONT. 217 



generically distinct and were indeed creodonts, while Mioclaenvs, 

 sensu stricto, might be a condylarth, in which case it would form a very 

 distinct family. 



In 1895 Osborn and Earle followed Scott's suggestion and defined 

 the Mioclaenidae as a family of condylarths. They retained the 

 three condylarth famihes of Cope, Periptychidae, Phenacodontidae, 

 and Meniscotheriidae. They divided the Periptycliidae into Anison- 

 chinae and Periptychinae and stressed the resemblance of the former 

 to the Mioclaenidae. They also noted that the Periptychidae had 

 resemblance to the Ambtypoda and suggested the possibihty of their 

 belonging there, but left them in the Condylarthra. In one of his 

 last papers, in 1897, Cope adopted tliis suggestion and associated the 

 Periptycliidae with the Pantolambdidae in the division Taligrada of 

 the Amblypoda. In the same year, but with Cope's paper before 

 him, Matthew rejected this transfer and adduced nev/ evidence and 

 reasons for retaining the Condylarthra as a broad group including 

 Periptychidae, Phenacodontidae, Mioclaenidae, and Meniscotheriidae. 

 In 1898 Osborn adopted Cope's arrangement of the Amblypoda, in- 

 cluding the Periptycliidae in the Taligrada and hence excluding it 

 from the Condylarthra. °' He seems subsequently to have adhered 

 constantljT- to the conception of the Condylarthra as including only 

 the Phenacodontidae, Mioclaenidae, and Meniscotheriidae, and this 

 authoritative view has since been the most widespread. Matthew 

 continued for a time to include the Periptychidae but after about 1914 

 agreed with Cope and Osborn in placing that group in the Amblypoda. 



The relationship of the hyopsodonts to this order was not estab- 

 lished until relatively recently, and even now the conclusive evidence 

 for it does not appear to be wddely known. From the time of its dis- 

 covery by Leidy in 1870 until 1903 Hyopsodus was universally con- 

 sidered to be allied to Nothardus, Pelycodus, or similar genera. It 

 was therefore generall}^ considered to be a primate, occasionally an 

 insectivore, but in these instances largely on the evidence of supposed 

 allies, which are in fact primates. In 1903 Wortman definitely dis- 

 tinguished Hyopsodus from the early lemuroids and referred it, in the 

 family Hyopsodontidae (defined but incorrectly delimited by Schlos- 

 ser in 1887 and recognized under an invalid name by Marsh in 1875), 

 to the Insectivora, on its own characters, not those of lemuroid sup- 

 posed allies. In 1909 Matthew thoroughly reviewed the Bridger 

 hyopsodontids, pointed out their resemblance to the mioclaenids, and 

 suggested that the two families might eventually prove to be synony- 

 mous. He remarked that they lack diagnostic insectivore specializa- 

 tions and expressed belief that they are closer to the Condjdarthra 

 than to the more typical Insectivora. Nevertheless, he then placed 



" He inadverteDtly cites Osborn and Earle (1895) as Osborn (1892) and gives the impression that the- 

 transfer of the periptychids to the Amblypoda was then proposed. 



