NOTES ON THE CANIDH OF THE WHITE RIVER OLIGOCENE. 413 
45. The tail was very much as in such viverrines as [erpestes. 
46. The sternum is of a generalized fissipede character, without special resemblance 
to either dogs or viverrines. 
47. The scapula has little resemblance to that of Canis, being low and broad, with 
spine placed nearly in the middle of the blade; the metacromion is very large and the 
acromion exceedingly long and prominent, from which it may be inferred that the clayi- 
cles were less reduced than in the modern dogs; the coracoid is very large. 
48. The humerus is much more viverrine than canine in appearance, having, like 
Daphenus, very prominent deltoid and supinator ridges, a low trochlea and entepicon- 
dylar foramen, but no supratrochlear perforation. 
49. The radius is like that of Daphenus, except for the immense styloid process. 
50. The ulna is much stouter than in the recent dogs and differs from that of 
Daphenus in having the distal radial facet sessile. 
51. The carpus contains a scapho-lunar which is quite like that of Canis ; the pyra- 
midal is viverrine and the pisiform quite peculiar in shape ; a radial sesamoid appears to 
have been present ; the trapezoid and magnum are canine, while the unciform is viverrine. 
52. The metacarpus has five elements, which are very short and slender like those 
of the civets. 
53. The pelvis is, in general, canine, but primitive in the elongation of the post- 
acetabular portion. 
54. The os penis is very large and shaped like that of Cryptoprocta aud the muste- 
lines. 
55. The femur is elongate and differs little from that of the recent dogs, except 
in the presence of a small third trochanter and in the narrow, shallow rotular trochlea. 
56. The patella is wide, thin and scale-like, herpestine in shape. 
57. The tibia is of nearly the same length as the femur, and its distal end is like 
that of Daphenus and Dinictis, but more deeply grooved. 
58. The fibula is relatively stout. 
59. The general appearance of the pes is viverrine and has many resemblances 
to that of Daphenus and some to that of Canis. 
60. A well-developed hallux is present and the metatarsals exceed the metacarpals 
in length much more than they do in Canis. 
61. The phalanges differ materially from those of Daphenus in that the claws 
are little or not at all retractile ; the unguals have but rudimentary hoods. 
62. The skeleton of C. geismarianus was very herpestine in proportions, while that 
of C. gregarius was more like that of a very small fox in which the hind leg much 
exceeded the fore leg in length. 
