HISTORY OF THE CARNIVORA 571 



'\Patriofelis was by far the most formidable of the Bridger 

 Carnivora and, with the exception of ^Har-pagolestes, the larg- 

 est. Its appearance must have been very curious, judged from 

 the modern standpoint, with its disproportionately large, 

 broad and rounded, leonine head, thick body and long, ex- 

 tremely heavy tail. The short, powerful limbs and broad feet 

 must have given it something of the appearance of an otter. 

 As in the case of so many other fcreodonts, the combination 

 of characters in the skeleton makes the question of habits a 

 very puzzling one. The teeth had a form suited only to 

 seizing and devouring prey, but the short legs and feet were not 

 at all adapted to the swift movements, whether by long-con- 

 tinued running, or by stealthy approach and sudden leap, 

 which are required in capturing agile prey, while the blunt 

 claws could have rendered no service in holding a struggling 

 creature. The form of the humerus and fore foot suggests 

 burrowing habits, but it seems most unlikely that so large an 

 animal could have lived in any such fashion. Terrestrial, ar- 

 boreal and aquatic modes of life have all been suggested, and, all 

 things considered, perhaps the least improbable conclusion is 

 that ]PatrioJelis was more or less aquatic and preyed chiefly 

 upon the fishes and turtles with which the Bridger waters 

 abounded. This hypothesis of Dr. Wortman's is supported 

 by the otter-like form of the animal. Whatever the principal 

 kind of food was, it must have been something that greatly 

 abraded the teeth, which in old animals were mere stumps. 



The Wind River representatives of the series are known 

 only from fragments, which, so far as they go, are not separable 

 from ^Patriofelis. On the other hand, the Wasatch genus, 

 ■fOxycena, is fairly well understood. This genus was very like 

 its Bridger successor, but differed from it in just such ways as 

 would be expected in an immediately ancestral form, that is to 

 say, in smaller size and less advanced speciahzation. The 

 number of teeth was not so far diminished : i^,c{, p |, m | , X 2 

 = 40 : the carnassial teeth were the same, but they were less 



