﻿420 
  PROCEEDINGS 
  OF 
  THE 
  NATIONAL 
  MUSEUM 
  vol. 
  los 
  

  

  non. 
  The 
  hypoconid 
  and 
  entoconid 
  are 
  represented 
  by 
  two 
  ridges 
  

   which 
  are 
  beset 
  with 
  small 
  tubercles 
  and 
  meet 
  posteriorly. 
  

  

  Hough 
  (1948, 
  p. 
  594), 
  noting 
  the 
  striking 
  difference 
  between 
  the 
  

   type 
  of 
  this 
  species 
  and 
  the 
  other 
  species 
  of 
  Daphoenus, 
  proposed 
  a 
  

   new 
  genus, 
  Daphoenocyon 
  , 
  to 
  receive 
  it. 
  At 
  the 
  same 
  time 
  she 
  erected 
  

   a 
  new 
  family, 
  the 
  Daphoenidae, 
  to 
  receive 
  a 
  number 
  of 
  North 
  American 
  

   genera 
  which 
  had 
  been 
  included 
  in 
  the 
  Caninae 
  but 
  which, 
  quite 
  

   obviously, 
  had 
  little 
  in 
  common 
  with 
  the 
  true 
  dogs. 
  On 
  the 
  other 
  

   hand, 
  there 
  are 
  three 
  groups, 
  the 
  Amphicynodontinae, 
  the 
  Amphi- 
  

   cyoninae, 
  and 
  the 
  Simocyoninae 
  — 
  all 
  of 
  holarctic 
  distribution 
  from 
  

   the 
  Lower 
  OUgocene 
  to 
  the 
  Pleistocene 
  and 
  well 
  estabhshed 
  in 
  the 
  

   Hterature 
  — 
  into 
  one 
  of 
  which 
  any 
  member 
  of 
  the 
  new 
  family 
  could 
  be 
  

   fitted 
  without 
  changing 
  the 
  definition 
  of 
  the 
  group. 
  Also, 
  to 
  include 
  

   the 
  Simocyoninae, 
  as 
  represented 
  by 
  Protemnocyon, 
  in 
  the 
  same 
  family 
  

   with 
  the 
  other 
  two 
  subfamilies 
  is 
  an 
  unnatural 
  and 
  nongenetic 
  

   grouping. 
  

  

  Since 
  the 
  characters 
  of 
  the 
  auditory 
  region 
  (Hough, 
  1948, 
  p. 
  577) 
  

   and 
  the 
  post 
  cranial 
  skeleton, 
  insofar 
  as 
  it 
  is 
  known, 
  of 
  the 
  Amphi- 
  

   cynodontinae 
  and 
  the 
  Amphicyoninae 
  are 
  closer 
  to 
  the 
  bears 
  than 
  the 
  

   true 
  dogs, 
  it 
  is 
  my 
  opinion, 
  in 
  view 
  of 
  the 
  evolutionary 
  fate 
  of 
  the 
  

   former, 
  that 
  these 
  two 
  groups 
  should 
  be 
  placed 
  in 
  the 
  Ursidae 
  rather 
  

   than 
  being 
  placed 
  in 
  a 
  separate 
  famUy 
  or 
  included 
  in 
  the 
  Canidae. 
  

   That 
  the 
  early 
  members 
  of 
  these 
  two 
  subfanuHes 
  should 
  possess 
  a 
  

   generalized 
  canoid 
  dentition 
  is 
  to 
  be 
  expected 
  if 
  they 
  are 
  to 
  be 
  in- 
  

   cluded 
  in 
  that 
  superfamily, 
  but 
  it 
  is 
  a 
  fallacy 
  to 
  use 
  the 
  superfamily 
  

   characters 
  of 
  the 
  teeth 
  to 
  determine 
  the 
  family 
  and 
  subfamily 
  affini- 
  

   ties 
  when 
  these 
  determinations 
  contradict 
  the 
  affinities 
  shown 
  by 
  the 
  

   fundamental 
  structure 
  of 
  the 
  limbs 
  and 
  basicraniimi. 
  

  

  A 
  comparison 
  of 
  the 
  figures 
  of 
  D. 
  dodgei 
  (Scott) 
  and 
  Parictis 
  

   dakotensis 
  Clark 
  (Scott 
  and 
  Jepsen, 
  1936, 
  pi. 
  12, 
  fig. 
  3; 
  pi. 
  14, 
  fig. 
  1) 
  

   shows 
  that 
  these 
  two 
  genera 
  are 
  indeed 
  closely 
  related 
  and 
  belong 
  

   to 
  the 
  same 
  subfamily. 
  This 
  relationship 
  was 
  confirmed 
  by 
  the 
  com- 
  

   parison 
  of 
  a 
  series 
  of 
  jaws 
  in 
  the 
  Carnegie 
  Museum 
  from 
  Pipestone 
  

   Springs 
  wliich 
  are 
  referable 
  to 
  these 
  two 
  genera. 
  In 
  fact, 
  except 
  for 
  

   very 
  minor 
  details, 
  the 
  only 
  difference 
  between 
  the 
  two 
  is 
  size. 
  In 
  

   both 
  forms 
  the 
  teeth 
  are 
  low 
  crowned, 
  rather 
  broad, 
  and 
  distinctly 
  

   less 
  bladelike 
  than 
  in 
  the 
  more 
  typical 
  canids. 
  Although, 
  in 
  the 
  

   material 
  available, 
  size 
  is 
  the 
  only 
  character 
  which 
  distinguishes 
  the 
  

   two 
  genera, 
  it 
  is 
  probable 
  that 
  when 
  the 
  material 
  is 
  better 
  known 
  

   valid 
  distinctions 
  will 
  be 
  found. 
  

  

  Although 
  specimens 
  of 
  this 
  subfamily 
  of 
  carnivores 
  seem 
  to 
  be 
  

   relatively 
  rare 
  in 
  North 
  America, 
  I 
  suspect 
  that 
  the 
  scarcity 
  is 
  more 
  

   apparent 
  than 
  real 
  and 
  that 
  quite 
  a 
  number 
  have 
  been 
  referred 
  to 
  

   either 
  Hesperocyon 
  or 
  Daphoenus 
  in 
  the 
  collections 
  of 
  our 
  various 
  

  

  