514 PROCEEDINGS OF THE NATIONAL MUSEUM VOL, 92 
and probably to that of Megatylopus? spatula (Cope)* from the 
Blanco formation, as well as to the larger of the teeth from Hay 
Springs, Nebr., and American Falls, Idaho, referred to species of 
Camelops. 
A camel of marked size, though possibly not so large as the Curtis 
ranch form, was described by Hay ** as Procamelus coconinensis from 
Anita, Ariz., a Pleistocene occurrence of relatively early date as in- 
dicated by the association of Hypolagus. The material of the camel 
is very fragmentary and I am uncertain as to whether this form should 
be referred to Camelops or to the Megatylopus-Paracamelus group, 
probably the latter. The type of the large Anita camel, the greater 
portion of an upper molar, is rather well worn, and, in addition to 
being a little smaller than teeth in the larger San Pedro Valley camels, 
shows much more acute external styles, particularly that on the outer 
wall of the anterior lobe between the parastyle and mesostyle. Foot 
bones in the Anita collection, however, indicate some individuals of 
very considerable size, so that were adequate material known it might 
be shown that the Curtis ranch or possibly the Benson form could not 
be distinguished from that occurring at Anita. 
TANUPOLAMA cf. LONGURIO (Hay) 
FIGURE 46 
In addition to the giant type of camel there is in the Curtis ranch 
fauna a representative of the llamalike group, Zanupolama Stock. 
The material includes portions of the right and left ramus of the 
mandible, No. 10636, with a representation of nearly all the teeth. 
There are also fragments of the jaws and right maxilla of a second 
and immature individual, No. 10635, with poorly preserved teeth. 
The more mature lower jaw (fig. 46) exhibits the first and second 
incisor, the alveolus for I;, an erupting canine, and P, to M;. P, and 
P; are missing from the formula but the caniniform P, with its pos- 
teriorly directed hook was found unemerged in the jaw. The first 
of the cheek tooth series, undoubtedly P,, is seen in both right and 
left mandibular portions. The tooth is relatively small but notice- 
ably hypsodont and not sharply constricted anteriorly. This tooth is 
partially broken down in both rami so that the character of its crown 
is not entirely evident. There is a shallow fold on the posterior por- 
tion of the outer wall, giving the tooth a slightly bilobed appearance ; 
a sharp enamel reentrant is seen on the anterior portion of the lingual 
wall, disappearing downward, however; and at the stage of wear 
represented a prominent enamel fold extends forward from the pos- 
4H). D. Cope, 4th Ann. Rept. Geol. Surv. Texas, for 1892, pp. 70-73, pl. 21, figs. 1-2, 1893. 
40. P. Hay, Proc. U. S. Nat. Mus., vol. 59, pp. 622-624, pl. 122, figs. 4-6, pl. 123, fig. 5, 
1921. 
“ Chester Stock, Carnegie Inst. Washington Publ. 393, pp. 29-87, pls. 1-6, 1928. 
