134 Bulletin American Museum of Natural History. [Vol. XVI, 



the base, and carry a nearly uniform width to the tip, where 

 they are sUghtly enlarged. This form of spine in the cervi- 

 cals, resembling the usual form of a dorsal spine, is seen to a 

 less extent in DaphcBnus, but not in any of the large modern 

 carnivora, among which the bears offer the nearest approach. 

 The zygapophyses are considerably smaller than in U. mari- 

 tinms; the transverse processes are as long, 

 but c^uite slender, — their inferior lamellae 

 quite well developed on the one or two 

 vertebras in which they have not been 

 broken off. 



The centra of probably the first nine 

 dorsals are preserved, of which the first 

 was found in position. They are some- 

 what narrower and a little longer than 

 in U. niaritiniiis; the first three are 

 strongly keeled, the others are round in- 

 teriorly, as in the bear. No part of the 

 arches or spines is preserved. 



The jemiir (Fig. 4) is smaller than that 

 of U. maritinnis, and resembles much 

 more that of the wolf in its characters. 

 The ball faces more laterally tlian in the 

 bears, and is well to one side of the axis 

 of the shaft ; the shaft is somewhat curved, 

 less so than in Can is, much more than 

 in Ursiis ; the condyles project more 

 posteriorly, the trochlea is narrow and 

 deep, as in the wolf, not broad and shal- 

 low as in the bear. The lesser trochanter 

 appears to be less prominent than in either Canis or Ursits; 

 the greater trochanter projects to a level with the top of the 

 ball, and is considerably more prominent than in Ursns. 



The upper end of the tibia is preserved, but considerably 

 crushed. It appears to have the high cnemial crest and nar- 

 row proximal facets of the dog, not the lower crest and broad 

 facets of the bear. 



Nothing is preserved of the feet, an unfortunate defect, for 



Fig. 4. Femur 



