2 University of Michigan 



search for more of the remains. Nothing further was found. 



The skull is evidentl}- that of a large hull of Syiiibos cai'i- 

 frons. It tallies so perfectly with descriptions already given' 

 that no repetition is necessary. The strong rugosities meeting 

 over the forehead and the lack of any hurr at the base of the 

 horns, and the outline of the basisphenoid bone and the relative 

 width of tlie base of the skull, together with the large size 

 render it certain that the specimen can not be placed in the 

 genus Bootlicriiini. 



Some years ago an imperfect skull of a smaller animal 

 referred to Bnbilicriuiu sargcnti was discovered near Grand 

 Rapids and described by Gidley- and Hay.'' but so far as known 

 this IS the only specimen referable to Syinbos cavifrons yet 

 discovered in Michigan. 



Differences of opinion have resulted in considerable dis- 

 cussion of the exact nomenclature of this animal, some con- 

 sidering Syinbos as a mature form of Bootlierinni, but the 

 differences in the two forms as revealed by recovered speci- 

 mens warrants the retention of the two names, at least pro- 

 visionally. 



Syinbos ranged well over the United States in Pleistocene 

 times, one specimen having been found as far south and west 

 as Oklahoma. Allen records eleven known specimens previous- 

 ly collected. 



An interesting peculiarity of this specimen is the presence 

 of a large cavity in the left cheek just below and anterior 

 to the orbit. Evidently the animal had suff'ered a severe injury 

 in some combat from wdiich it had, in part at least, recovered, 

 as the edges of the wound are rounded and partly replaced by 

 new bone. 



1 AHen Mems. Am. Mus. Nat. Hist., N. S., Vol. I, p. 214. 



= Gidley. Proc. U. S. Nat. Mus., Vol. 34, p. 6S3, PI. LI.X, 190S. 



=> Hay. Proc. U. S. Nat. Mus., Vol. 48, p. 525, PI. 31, 1915. 



