I 





K 



FOSSILS OF THE GEAVEL SEEIES : AUCHENIA. 



249 



v 



\S 



ation of the same bone in the lama, and is about the size of that in the 

 camel. Perhaps it belonged to a small individual of the preceding extinct 

 form ; probably to a smaller species. It is three and a half inches long, one 

 and a half wide at the proximal end, and one and a quarter wide at the distal 

 end. The articulation of the latter is not expanded beneath, as in the camel, 

 for the apposition of the sesamoid bones. 



6. The proximal three fourths of a metacarpal, probably of a deer. It 

 is of rather more robust proportions than the corresponding bone of the 



i 



Virginia deer. 



7. An incisor tooth of a small horse, partially imbedded in a coherent 

 mass of gravel, which also contains the impress of a nut-like fruit. 



8. Portion of the tibia of a small horse, probably pertaining to the same 

 individual as the tooth just mentioned. 



9. The lower extremity of a metacarpal, probably of the same horse. It 

 is proportionately thicker and less wide than in the corresponding bone of 

 the domestic horse. The articulation is one and a half inches wide, and 

 sixteen lines fore and aft at the median ridge. The equine remains perhaps 

 belong to a Ilipparion. 



10. A few fragments of undetermined bones of other animals. 



Among the collection of fossils in the cabinet of Wabash College, purchased 

 of Dr. Yates, and submitted to Dr. Leidy for examination, there is a well- 

 preserved series of lower molar teeth,* which from their size and constitution 

 would appear to belong to a species of lama exceeding in size not only the 

 existing lama, but also the camel and Palauchenia. The question then arises, 

 as Dr. Leidy remarks:! Whether these teeth beloi 



Palauchenia magna, or to a third species ? He adds : " The proportions of the 

 hones upon which the former was founded indicate an animal one third larger 

 than the camel, but the teeth above noticed might belong to an animal but 

 little exceeding a large camel or the P. magna. If the characters assigned 

 to the latter as a genus are correct, it is clear that the series of teeth from 

 California do not belong to the same animal, and they then could only per- 



henia Californica, or to another species rather 

 Under the circumstances, until further light 



larger than the existing camel. 



is thrown on the subject by the discovery of additional material, we may sup- 

 pose that two large species of lama, perhaps exclusive of Palauchenia magna, 

 were once inhabitants of the western portion of the North American conti- 



* 



Figured in Contributions, &c, Hate XXXVII. Figs. 1, 2. 



f 1. e. 3 p. 256, 



h 



