Revieics — Dr. H. Filliol — Mammals of Sansan. 279 



in the Sansan Maclicerodus seems to indicate that this genus, 

 although specialized as regards its dentition, is otherwise a 

 generalized type. The other most interesting Carnivore is the one 

 described by Lartet as Hemicyon, but referred by Gervais and 

 Gaudry to Hycenarctus. The only specimen of this species that 

 has hitherto been figured is part of an upper jaw with the hinder 

 molars ; but Dr. Filhol tells us that the species was originally 

 founded upon the evidence of the mandible. An entire palate and 

 mandible are figured in pis. vii.-ix., which sufficiently show that this 

 animal does not belong to Hycsnarctus, and as it is certainly not 

 referable to Ceplialogale, and according to Dr. Filhol is different 

 from Dinocyon, it appears entitled to rank as a distinct genus. It 

 may be observed that although the premolars agree with those of 

 Hycenarctus, and differ from those of the Dogs, in the absence of 

 fore-and-aft cusps, yet that there are four of these teeth, in place 

 of the three of Sycenarctus ; the vv^hole four in the lower jaw forming 

 a nearly continuous series. A further difference occurs in the 

 narrower and more trenchant form of the hinder half of the lower 

 carnassial tooth ; while Dr. Filhol states that the feet of this animal 

 were digitigrade, those of Amphicyon, and doubtless EycenarcUis, 

 being plantigrade. 



Another equally large Carnivore described by Lartet as Pseudocyon, 

 but identified by Pomel with AmpMcyon, appears likewise entitled to 

 repi'esent a distinct genus. This animal is unfortunately known 

 only by the lower jaw, which agrees in general characters with the 

 half-bear-like half-dog-like animals so common in the Miocene and 

 Pliocene. It presents, however, the unique peculiarity that the first 

 lower premolar is implanted by two distinct roots ; the position of 

 this tooth being far behind the canine, instead of close to it as in 

 Amphicyon. 



In the Ungulates we have a good figure of the skull of Bhinoceros 

 sansaniensis, which is regarded as a good species ; while a beautiful 

 plate (pi. xvi.) of the jaws of Anchitherium with the deciduous and 

 permanent teeth cannot fail to attract attention. Equally important 

 is the fine skull of Listriodon shown in pi. xviii., which, in spite of 

 its Tapir-like teeth, is clearly seen to be a true Pig. Space does 

 not admit of reference to the numerous Deer-like Euminants which 

 are so abundant at Sansan ; but we wish that Dr. Filhol had had an 

 opportunity of comparing the jaw figured on pi. xxx. as Strogulo- 

 gnathus with that of the existing Eydropotes. 



Passing by the Antelopes and Mastodons, our few remaining 

 observations must refer to the subject which forms the crowning 

 interest of the whole work — the identity of the limbs described as 

 Macrotheritim with the skull and teeth of Chalicotlierium. The 

 association of similar limb bones and teeth, not only at Sansan, but 

 likewise at Pikermi and Samos, as well as in the United States, 

 leaves no doubt that they belong to one and the same type of 

 animal, although it may, of course, prove that there is more than 

 a single genus. Dr. Filhol gives us not only figures of the bones 

 of the feet, bat also attempts a restoration of the skeleton. In the 



