180 SMITHSONIAN MISCELLANEOUS COLLECTIONS [voL. 48 
western Siberia. They were described and figured by Pallas in 
1773". but no name was given until 1827 when Hamilton Smith pro- 
posed Ovibos pallantis, mentioning the specimens described by 
Pallas, and also certain others from the region of the Lena River 
previously figured by Ozeretkofsky. The figures published by Pallas 
indicate an animal very similar to or identical with Ovibos moschatus. 
Much reduced copies of these figures were reproduced by Cuvier.” 
3. Bos pallasti was based on the same specimens as Bos pallantis 
and is therefore a synonym. It is, moreover, preoccupied by Bos 
pallasi Baer 1823, proposed for a different animal. In the same 
paper in which Dekay proposed the name pallasiit, he described a 
specimen from New Madrid, Missouri, which evidently belongs to 
the species later called cavifrons by Leidy. 
4. Bos canaliculatus was based on skulls found in Siberia, doubt- 
less the same species that was named Ovibos pallantis by Smith, and 
likewise not satisfactorily distinguished from Ovibos moschatus. 
The name canaliculatus refers to the narrow median groove or 
channel between the bases of the horn cores. 
5. Ovibos cavifrons was based on a cranium and attached horn 
cores from the vicinity of Fort Gibson, Indian Territory. It was in- 
cluded with Bos bombifrons in the genus Bodtherium when that 
name was proposed. Later it was thought to be a synonym of 
bombifrons on the supposition that the differentiating characters 
were those of male and female. If this supposition is not correct, 
as I believe, the specific name cavifrons must be used for the species 
described by Leidy. Specimens similar in general to the type of 
cavifrons have been found in various parts of the Mississippi Valley, 
one particularly complete having been reported from Council Bluffs, 
Iowa. + 
6. Ovibos maximus was based on an imperfect cervical vertebra, 
the axis or dentata. Whether this is actually different from the 
same bone in Owibos moschatus has not been conclusively shown. 
In fact, Richardson himself admitted some doubt. Leidy, in answer- 
ing certain remarks by Richardson, was quick to notice this, and in. 
one place makes the following pointed comment: “Sir J. R. then 
says, ‘ The size of Dr. Leidy’s specimen of cavifrons does not ex- 
ceed that of the skull of an aged musk-ox bull, and the dentata of 
1 Novi Comment. Acad. Sci. Imp. Petrop., xvi, pp. 576-606, pl. xvi, figs. 
I-3, 1773. 
2 Oss. Foss. Quad., tv, pl. 11, figs. 9-10, 1812. 
3 Foss. Mamm. Prussia, p. 27, 1823—fide Lydekker. 
* McGee, Am. Jour. Sci., XXXIV, pp. 217-220, 1887. 
