162 THE DESEADO FORMATION OF PATAGONIA 
with the fibula at the upper end, in which it is in strong 
contrast to the toxodonts. 
While in the table of comparisons numbers 1, 2, 3, 4, 
8,9; 10, 14; 17, 19, 20, and’ 21 ‘may. be, in partjsor wholly 
interpreted as adaptations, and alone would not be at 
all conclusive of relationship to elephants, numbers 1, 5, 
6, 7, 8, II, 12, 13, 15, 18, and 21 point toward the elephants 
as the close relatives of the Pyrotheria. In the first series 
of points there are none which mitigate against associating 
these two groups, while if the attempt is made to associate 
Pyrotherium with any group other than Proboscidea there 
are strong points, and a number of them, which would 
prevent this association. As a result of the foregoing, 
together with a feeling which continued handling of the 
specimens has given me, I can come to no other conclusion 
than that the Pyrotheria should be placed under Probos- 
cided. 
In his Linea Filogenetica de los Proboscideos, Ameghino 
assigns to this suborder, or at least puts into the phylo- 
genetic tree, a considerable number of forms from the 
Casamayor beds, all of them genera with bunodont mo- 
lars, usually known by but one or two teeth, such as A smith- 
woodwardi, Nephracodus, Cephanodus, Paulogervaisia, and 
the better known genera, Carloameghinia, and Dido- 
lodus, all of which he makes ancestral to Pyrotherium. 
So far as known, however, these forms show none of the 
peculiarities of the Pyrotherium skull or dentition, so that 
it is difficult for me to see any reason for including them 
even in the suborder. The genus Carlozitielia, from the 
upper Casamayor, is in a different position, having an 
enlarged upper incisor (found isolated) and molars of the 
bilophodont type. I should include this in the family 
Pyrotheridae and none of the others. 
