° '1915 ] Shufeldt, Remains of Hesperornis. 293 



formations, it is quite probable that both specimens came from the 

 same geological level." 



Professor Marsh was firmly convinced that the great toothed 

 divers of the extinct genus Hesperornis were confined to the Creta- 

 ceous Beds of Kansas. So tenacious was he of this opinion that, 

 when the fossil remains of a big extinct diver came into his posses- 

 sion, having been collected in Montana by Hatcher, he was very 

 loath to consider it a species of Hesperornis, notwithstanding the 

 fact that the fossil bones presented strong hesperornithine char- 

 acters. He therefore created a new genus — Coniomis — to 

 contain it. 



Now the vertebra found by Doctor Stanton has been shown by 

 Doctor Lull and myself to have undoubtedly belonged to a species 

 of Hesperornis, and the specimen practically presents the same 

 characters as the fossil vertebra of a Hesperornis in the Yale Uni- 

 versity collection, No. 1499, though there are a few appreciable 

 differences. 



Up to the present time, science has nothing to show by way of 

 proof that the long bones, described by Marsh as belonging to a big 

 extinct diver which he named Coniomis alius, belonged to the same 

 species from an individual of which came the vertebra discovered 

 by Doctor Stanton. 



Basing my opinion on the proportions existing between the 23d 

 vertebra of Hesperornis regalis and the tibio-tarsus in that species — 

 as compared with the proportions of the vertebra here being con- 

 sidered and with the tibio-tarsus of the species Marsh described as 

 Coniornis altus — I should say that the vertebra found by Doctor 

 Stanton belonged to a somewhat smaller species of Hesperornis 

 than did the long bones of Marsh's Coniornis, which latter is also a 

 Hesperornis as I have elsewhere pointed out. 



I herewith propose a provisional name for this apparently new 

 species of Hesperornis, basing it upon the vertebra described in this 

 paper. I suggest the name for it of Hesperornis montana. 



Possibly, in the future, more fossil material of the Hesperornithidce 

 may be found in the above named formation in Montana ; and this 

 material may go to show that all the forms here named and con- 

 sidered belonged to the same species, they being distinguished only 

 by such differences as may have been due to age and sex. On the 



