132 Bulletin American Museum of Natural History. [Vol. X, 



individuals, and were found hopelessly mixed together. I also 

 give measurements of the corresponding bones of the Dromedary 

 for comparison : 



C. kansaniis. Dromedary . 



MM. MM. 



Length of posterior cannon bone 345 325 



360 

 365 



Length of anterior cannon bone 330 325 



370 



Length of uhia and radius 555 580 



Length of humerus 375 420 



Length of scapula 415 460 



Length of phalanges, proximal row 98 102 



to 



124 



A specimen from an anterior cannon bone from the Silver Lake 

 locality in (Jregon is considerably more robust than either the 

 Dromedary or those of C. kansanus from Hay Springs ; it meas- 

 ures 385 mm. There is yet another specimen in the collection 

 consisting of a complete posterior cannon bone from the Pleisto- 

 cene of Hitchcock County, Nebraska, which greatly exceeds in 

 length that of any known Camel. It is notably more slender than 

 the cannon bone of the Dromedary, has less distal spread of the 

 metapodials, but is nearly double the length ; its exact measure- 

 ment is 555 mm. It is highly probable that this represents a 

 distinct species, but I refrain from creating another specific name 

 until we know more of the skeleton. 



C.amelops vitikerianus Cope. 



A fragment of an upper jaw containing the first and second 

 molars, together with the roots and alveoli of the two superior 

 premolars, is the only specimen of this species so far known with 

 certainty. A complete lower jaw was described by Cope from 

 the Pleistocene of Texas under the name of Holoineiiiscus macro- 

 ceplialus^ which I strongly suspect belongs to this species. It 

 agrees, so far as one can judge, in size, but no exact comparison 

 is possible, since the inferior condition oiC. vitikerianus is unknown. 

 Cope remarks in his description: " I observe here that it is not cer- 

 tain that the species now described is not an Auc/icnia, as the supe- 

 rior dentition is not known." The lower molars, as figured, are 



' Rep. Geolog. Surv. Texas, 1893, p. 85. 



