arr. 16, TWO SQUALODONTS FROM MARYLAND—KELLOGG. 25 
lodon meyeri.2 Type in the ‘‘Wirttemb. Naturalien Sammlung” at 
Stuttgart, Germany. 
Type locality.—Both specimens came from the “‘ Molasse bei Bal- 
tringen,’’ Wurttemberg, Germany. The ‘‘Meeresmolasse”’ of Baltrin- 
gen is referable to the Middle Miocene or Vindobonian according to 
Osborn.” 
Subsequent allocation.—Trouessart™ placed this species in the syn- 
onymy of Squalodon servatus. The species should be considered as a 
substitute name for Arionius servatus Meyer, for Brandt held this 
genus was without foundation and that the species properly belonged 
in the genus Squalodon. 
PACHYODON MIRABILIS Meyer. 
Pachyodon mirabilis Meyer, H. von, Neues Jahrbuch fiir Mineralogie, Stuttgart, 
p. 414, 1838. 
Type specimen.—Original description was based upon a single tooth 
which was thought to bear resemblance to some pinniped. Type 
probably in the ‘‘ Wirttemb. Naturalien Sammlung” at Stuttgart, 
Germany. 
Type locality.—Type tooth came from the ‘ Bohnerz-Ablagerun- 
gen’? of Altstadt near Mésskirch in Baden, Germany.” Middle 
Miocene. 
Subsequent allocattion.—Von Meyer describes this tooth in such a 
perfunctory manner that it should be considered unidentifiable. He 
says that it belongs to a phocid like animal, and so far as known to 
the writer, never published a figure of the specimen. A few years 
later, Von Meyer*™ referred two molar teeth obtained from the 
‘‘ Bohnerz ’’ formation of Mésskirch or Heudorf to thisform. In 1847, 
he published a more detailed description“ of the teeth from Mésskirch 
and Baltringen. From this account it appears that the molar teeth 
of Pachyodon are serrated on one edge only and three or four distinct 
accessory cusps are usually present. The roots of the molars are 
united by a thin isthmus and the crown is high in comparison with 
that of Zeuglodon. From what has been published concerning this 
material, it is not possible to clear up the relationship it may have 
to the other described squalodonts. 
Brandt '* has raised the question whether Von Meyer’s Pachyodon 
has priority over Grateloup’s Squalodon. The name Pachyodon 
should not be revived in this sense until we can be certain that Von 
Meyer’s specimen really pertains to those cetaceans we now recognize 
as Squa/odon and not some other cetacean. 
9Brandt, J. F., Mém. Acad. Imp. Sci. de St.-Petersbourg, ser. 7, vol. 20, No. 1, p. vii, 1873; and 
vol. 21, No.6, pp. 30, 37, 1874. 
10Qsborn, H. F., The Age of Mammals, New York, p. 258, 1910. 
11 Trouessart, E. L., Cat. Mamm. viv. foss., Berlin, fase. 5, p. 1011, 1898. 
12Bronn, H. G., Lethaea Geognostica, Stuttgart, vol. 3, pp. 754, 755, 1856. 
13 Meyer, H. von, Neues Jahrbuch fiir Mineralogie, Stuttgart, pp. 459, 460, 1841. 
14 Meyer, H. von, Idem, p. 673, 1847.. 
1s Brandt, J. F., Mém. Acad. Imp. Sci. de St.-Petersbourg, ser. 7, vol. 20, No. 1, p. 315, 1873. 
