1902.] Matthew^ A Skull of Dinocyon froin Texas. 



135 



the best generic distinction between Diiiocyoii and Hemicyon 

 lies in the foot characters, the former genus being plantigrade 

 with short metapodials like the bears, the latter digitigrade 

 with long metapodials like the dogs.' If indeed the closer 

 resemblance to the Canidae which we find in the femur and 

 tibia of D. gidlcyi is equally marked in the distal parts of the 

 limbs, then our species is not related to Dinocyou, but must 

 be placed in a distinct genus allied to Hemicyon. 



Mcasnrcinenis. 



Length of skull, incisors to occipital 



crest 



Length of upper dentition (i^-m^- in 



Dinocyon and Ursus) 



Length of upper p^-ni^ 



" pi longit 



" mi '■ 



" " m^ " 



Width " " m^ transverse. .. .est. . 

 " " " mi " ... .est. . 



" " . " pA " 



Length of jaw 



Depth " " beneath pj 



" " " " j-[^^ 



Post-canine diastema (cj-p^ exclusix'c) 

 Length p^^-ni^ 



Width of skull (as crushed) 



Length of seven cervical vertebras . 

 Width of centra of same, average. 

 Length of ten dorsal vertebrae . . . . 



Average width of centra 



Length of femur 



Least diameter of shaft 



Diameter of distal end 



" ball 



450 



204 

 79 

 34 

 26 

 21 



32 

 40 



22 



82 

 103 



40 



31 



17 



270 



347 

 44 



39^^^ 

 39 



391 

 32 



87 

 46 



29 

 2,2, 

 34 



45 

 32 

 19 



323 



f44 

 52 

 17 

 15 

 13 

 18 



19 

 12 



180 



397 



'47 

 64 

 16 



19 

 27 



15 



13 



8 



252 



50 



50 



76 



25 

 21 



17 

 197 



330 

 46 



345 

 40 



43 « 

 34 

 98 



56 



M 5, 



55 



47 



. H 



69 



47 

 24 



Although more specialized than Ainl^lncyoii, D. gidleyi is 

 apparently not nearer to the bears; the characters of the 



' Filhol, Mammif^res fossiles de Sansan, p. 151. 



