DISCOVERY OF THE TITANOTHERES AND ORIGINAL DESCRIPTIONS 



197 



Type locality and geologic Jiorizon. — Myaing Town- 

 ship of the Pakokku district, Burma; Pondaung sand- 

 stone (upper to middle Eocene). 



Cotypes. — Pilgrim and Cotter write: 



This species is represented by five fragments of upper 

 molars, two of which are ahnost identical in shape and com- 

 prise the antero-internal quarter of two of the upper molars 

 probably occupying successive positions in the maxilla and 



ably more behind the level of the paracone than is the case in 

 the Chalicotheriidae; thirdly, because in pm^ there is a single 

 large rounded and isolated inner cusp — the protocone, which is 

 totally unconnected with the two main outer cusps — a condi- 

 tion which never occurs in any chalicotheroid. In that family 

 the protocone in the premolars is connected to the outer cusps 

 either by a single or by a double crest. In addition to these 

 specific differences, the general structure of the tooth is unlike 

 that of any chalicotheroid that is known to us. 



Figure 149. — Type of Diploceras {Eolitaiiotherimn) osborni 

 Palatal view. Carnegie Mus. 2859. After Peterson, 1914. One-half natural size. 



being either m^ and m' or m' and m', two other portions of 

 the wall of the external crescents, and another an isolated proto- 

 cone. A sixth fragment consists only of the internal half of 

 what we take to be the last upper premolar. Three of these 

 pieces are figured in Plate 5, Figure 11 [9-11]. (See fig. 153.] 



Systematic characters. — Pilgrim and Cotter write: 



It is obvious that these are not chalicotheroid; first because 

 there is no trace of a protoconule, which in the Chalicotheriidae 

 is always present between the protocone and the paracone, 

 being invariably united to the latter by a transverse crest; 

 secondly, because the protocone in our specimens lies consider- 



On the other hand, it approximates so nearly to that of many 

 of the Titanotheriidae that we have no hesitation in assigning 

 these fragments to that family. A careful comparison with the 

 various known species of the Titanotheriidae convinces us 

 that the Burmese fragments belong to a new species, but whether 

 this is to be referred to one of the known genera of that family 

 or whether it belongs to a new genus is a point which the 

 material at our disposal is insufficient to enable us to deter- 

 mine. We shall therefore do no more than indicate its prob- 

 able affinities, leaving a definite conclusion to the future, 

 when we may hope that more abundant material may come 

 to fight. 



