NOTES ON THE CANIDH OF THE WHITE RIVER OLIGOCENE. d00 
liminary, it will be useful to cite Schlosser’s account of the salient characteristics of the 
hind foot among the recent Canide. 
“Die Anordnung der Tarsalien und Metatarsalien weicht natiirlich weniger ab yon 
jener der tibrigen Carnivoren als jene der Carpalien und Metacarpalien, doch finden wir 
auch hier immerhin einige nicht unwesentliche Modificationen. Es hat sich das Navi- 
culare ziemlich betrichtlich yverschmiilert, so dass es nicht mehr die Aussenseite der 
unteren Astragalus-Partie umhtillen kann. Das Metatarsale II, das sonst nur von zwei 
Punkten mit dem Mt. ITI in Beriihrung kommt, legt sich hier seiner ganzen Breite nach 
an das Oberende desselben. In Folge der Verkiirzung des Tarsus ist auch der aufstei- 
gende Fortsatz des Mt. V sehr kurz geworden. Die Phalangen haben gleich den Meta- 
podien nahezu quadratischen Querschnitt, die Krallen sind sehr spitz, aber wenig gebogen, 
haben jedoch ziemlich bedeutende Liinge. Die Hunde sind die ausgesprochensten Zehen- 
gadnger unter allen Carnivoren ” (’88, p. 22). 
In Daphenus the astragalus is decidedly different both from the astragalus of 
Dinictis and from that of Canis, but approximates more the latter. The trochlea is low 
and but moderately grooved, decidedly more than in Dinictis, but less than in the modern 
dogs, and the articular surface does not descend so far upon the neck as in the latter. 
The trochlea is asymmetrical, the outer condyle considerably exceeding the inner in size. 
The neck of the astragalus is much longer than in Hoplophoneus, Dinictis, or even than 
in Camis, and is directed more strongly toward the tibial side of the foot; the head is 
depressed, but yery convex. The external calcaneal facet is hardly so large or so 
oblique in position as in Dinictis, but it is more like the facet seen in that genus than 
like the facet of Canis. The sustentacular facet is shorter and wider than in the 
latter, and the sulcus separating it from the external facet is very much shallower. In 
Dinictis the sustentacular facet has a posterior concave prolongation, such as is not found 
in Daphenus, nor does the latter possess the distal accessory facet for the caleaneum 
which is so distinctly shown in Canis. The navicular facet is depressed, but very convex, 
and there is a small facet for the cuboid. 
The caleaneum is more like that of Dinictis than that of the recent dogs ; though the 
tuber calcis is longer, thinner and more compressed than in either of those groups, and 
its dorso-plantar diameter is more uniform, increasing less toward the distal end; its free 
end is less thickened and more deeply grooved by the suleus for the Achilles tendon. 
Along the outer edge of the dorsal border is a quite deep and conspicuous groove, which 
occurs also in Dinictis, but not in Canis. ‘The external astragalar facet is very like that 
of the Machairodont, being more angulated and more oblique in position than in the 
modern dogs, presenting inward as much as dorsally. The sustentaculum also resembles 
that of Dinictis in being less oblique,much more prominent and in having its facet much 
