Jt 
—_ 
NOTES ON THE CANID#® OF THE WHITE RIVER OLIGOCENE. De 
The femoral condyles are feline rather than canine in shape; they are small and of 
nearly equal size, though the outer one is slightly the larger of the two, and project 
much less strongly behind the plane of the shaft than in Canis. They are also less 
widely separated and less expanded transversely than in the latter genus. As in so 
many features of the limb bones, the whole distal end of the femur is more like that of 
Dimetis than it is like the corresponding part of the modern dogs or cats. In Dinictis, 
however, the rotular groove is shorter proximo-distally and broader, and the condyles are 
even less prominent. 
The patella is very different from that of the recent Canide, in which group this 
bone is small, narrow and thick, but has more resemblance to that of Dinictis. It is 
quite broad, but very thin in the antero-posterior dimension; the anterior face is more 
roughened than in the Machairodont genus and the proximal end is more pointed, not so 
abruptly truncated. The facet for the rotular trochlea of the femur is, in correspondence 
with the shallowness of that groove, but slightly convex transversely and slightly concave 
proximo-distally. 
The tdia (Pl. XX, Figs. 19, 20) is relatively short and slender, and bears consider- 
able resemblance to that of Dinictis, more than to that of Canis. The proximal facets 
for the femoral condyles are small and but little concave ; the outer facet is somewhat 
larger than the inner, and projects farther beyond the line of the shaft, both posteriorly 
and laterally. On the distal side of the overhanging shelf thus formed is a facet for the 
head of the fibula, which is much larger than in the recent dogs and more rounded in shape 
than in Dinictis. The spine of the tibia is very low and is more distinctly bifid than in 
the Machairodont genus, though much less so than in Canis. As in the former, the 
cnemial crest is not very strongly developed ; it is far less prominent than in the existing 
Canide and does not descend so far upon the shaft as in them. 
The tibial shaft is slender and nearly straight, not displaying the lateral and antero- 
posterior curvatures seen in Canis ; proximally the shaft is of trihedral section, becoming 
approximately cylindrical below and transversely oval at the distal end. The latter is 
shaped much as in Dinictis and is conspicuously different from that of Canis; the 
astragalar facets are less deeply incised, and the intercondylar ridge is less elevated than 
in the latter, but the facets are deeper and the ridge higher than in the Machairodont, in 
correlation with the deeper grooving of the astragalus. The large transverse sulcus, 
which in the recent dogs invades these astragalar facets, is not shown in Daphenus. 
The internal malleolus is very large and resembles that of Dinictis, save that its posterior 
border is more inclined and the process is thus distally somewhat narrower. The sulcus 
for the posterior tibial tendon is very distinctly marked, more so than in Canis. The 
ANS 1, SE —AVOlby SADE, MHS 
