1 62 THE DESEADO FORMATION OF PATAGONIA 



with the fibula at the upper end, in which it is in strong 

 contrast to the toxodonts. 



While in the table of comparisons numbers I, 2, 3, 4, 

 8, 9, 10, 14, 17, 19, 20, and 21 may be, in part, or wholly, 

 interpreted as adaptations, and alone would not be at 

 all conclusive of relationship to elephants, numbers I, 5, 

 6, 7, 8, 11, 12, 13, 15, 18, and 21 point toward the elephants 

 as the close relatives of the Pyrotheria. In the first series 

 of points there are none which mitigate against associating 

 these two groups, while if the attempt is made to associate 

 Pyrotherium with any group other than Proboscidea there 

 are strong points, and a number of them, which would 

 prevent this association. As a result of the foregoing, 

 together with a feeling which continued handling of the 

 specimens has given me, I can come to no other conclusion 

 than that the Pyrotheria should be placed under Probos- 

 cidea. 



In his Linea Filogenetica de los Proboscideos, Ameghino 

 assigns to this suborder, or at least puts into the phylo- 

 genetic tree, a considerable number of forms from the 

 Casamayor beds, all of them genera with bunodont mo- 

 lars, usually known by but one or two teeth, such as Asmith- 

 ivoodwardi, Nephracodus, Cephanodus, Paulo gervaisia, and 

 the better known genera, Carloameghinia, and Dido- 

 lodus, all of which he makes ancestral to Pyrotherium. 

 So far as known, however, these forms show none of the 

 peculiarities of the Pyrotherium skull or dentition, so that 

 it is difficult for me to see any reason for including them 

 even in the suborder. The genus Carlozittelia, from the 

 upper Casamayor, is in a different position, having an 

 enlarged upper incisor (found isolated) and molars of the 

 bilophodont type. I should include this in the family 

 Pyrotheridae and none of the others. 



