NO. I LOWER EOCENE MAMMALIAN FAUNAS — GAZIN 23 



since 1952 from the same locality, 12 miles north of Big Piney, as 

 the type of Palaeictops pineyensis. P3 is much longer and exhibits 

 a small anterior, conical citspule, rather better defined than in P. 

 tauri-cinerei, but not as highly placed on the primary cusp as in Lost 

 Cabin Parictops miilticuspis. The cuspule on the posterior slope of 

 the primary cusp is also conical and well defined, possibly better 

 developed than the posterior or talonid cusp which has been nearly 

 obliterated by wear. 



LEPTICTID?, genus and species undetermined 



An isolated lower molar from low in the Knight to the east of 

 Steamboat Mountain might be Mi of a leptictid. It is a slender tooth 

 with an elongated trigonid portion, but rather unlike Diacodon or 

 Palaeictops. 



A small jaw in the University of California collection from the 

 Dad locality, No. 43759, exhibits the greater portion of the last two 

 molars. It is much smaller than the foregoing and may be leptictid 

 or possibly nyctitheriid, although resemblance to Bridger forms of the 

 latter seems remote. Damage to critical portions of the teeth leaves 

 much to be desired in attempting a detailed study. 



ERINACEIDAE? 

 Cf. ENTOMOLESTES, sp. 



Isolated teeth that compare very closely with some illustrated by 

 McKenna (i960, figs. 25c, 26) were found by Henry Roehler at 

 various levels in the Knight sequence around the Rock Springs uplift. 

 One upper molar is from west of Rock Springs at a level about 1,195 

 feet below the Tipton tongue. Roehler considers this to be about 

 Graybullian in age. Another upper tooth found to the southwest of 

 Rock Springs at about 751 feet below this tongue of Green River may 

 be Lysitean although there seems to be no certain evidence of this. 

 A lower jaw fragment with M3, which he found above the base of the 

 Tipton tongue on Table Rock to the East of the Rock Springs 

 uplift, is surely Lostcabinian in age. 



McKenna (i960, p. 58) has included Entomolestes in the family 

 Amphilemuridae, which he regards as insectivore. While this ar- 

 rangement may be entirely correct, I understand that these and 

 related forms are currently under study by Robinson and by 

 McKenna, so that, until these studies are completed, I have tenta- 

 tively used the classification employed by Simpson (1945, p. 49)- 

 Attention should perhaps be called here to an oversight in Simpson's 



