/ 
484 Prof. O. C. Marsh—Restoration of Coryphodon. 
species and two genera, Manteodon and Ectacodon, but adding little 
of importance to what was already known of the group. In his 
volume on “The Vertebrata of the Tertiary Formations of the 
West,” 1884, he again discusses at length the Coryphodontide, and 
gives a number of new figures. The historical part, pp. 513-517, 
is marred by many errors, characteristic examples of which may 
be seen in two footnotes, pp. 518 and 516. The statements there 
made are erroneous, as has already been shown in the present article. 
In his monograph on the Dinocerata, 1884, the writer discussed 
the various relations of the Coryphodontide to the Dinocerata, 
giving figures of the skull and brain-cast, the upper and lower 
molar teeth, and the feet, of Coryphodon hamatus. The name 
Amblydactyla was substituted for Amblypoda, and Coryphodontia for 
Pantodonta, the names replaced both being essentially preoccupied. 
Two recent papers by Mr. Charles Earle, on the Coryphodontide, 
are of interest.! He treats of the teeth of this group, especially of 
their variations and homologies, and gives figures of some of the 
most characteristic forms. He also discusses at length the various 
American species named, and decides “that the large number of 
Species which have been founded by Prof. Cope should be greatly 
reduced; and that in many cases his species are to be considered 
merely varieties, and that often these varieties are merely individual 
variations in the same species due to age and sex.” 
In a joint paper by Prof. H. F. Osborn and Dr. J. L. Wortman, 
which appears in the Bulletin of the American Museum, p. 81, 
1892, the former discusses this group briefly, especially some 
specimens recently collected in the Wind River region by Dr. 
Wortman, and gives two figures of the feet of Coryphodon. In 
this paper, p. 118, the family Coryphodontide, established by the 
writer in 1876, is credited to Prof. Cope, but with no reference 
as authority, while the preoccupied names Pantodonta and Ambly- 
poda are also used in place of Coryphodontia and Amblydactyla. 
In discussing the foot structure of Coryphodon (p. 121), Prof. 
Osborn makes some very emphatic statements, which are important 
if true, but he gives no facts to support them, and there is good 
evidence that he is in error. One statement is as follows: “the 
positions of the fore and hind feet of Coryphodon were absolutely 
different, the fore foot was digitigrade like that of the Elephant, 
and the hind foot was plantigrade like that of the Bear.” These 
positions are shown in his figures, which afford no evidence to 
support the statement, especially in regard to the hind foot. 
Again, in giving the characters of the feet, Prof. Osborn adds to 
what was already known, that the “second metacarpal” has a 
vertical ectocuneiform facet; a statement likewise open to question. 
Another assertion (p. 122) nearly as strange is, that in “The 
figure of the pes of Coryphodon given by Marsh . . . . the astragalus 
is represented as covering the entire upper surface of the cuboid.” 
A reference to the figure in question (fig. 3) will, however, show 
’ Science, vol. xx. p. 7, 1892; and Bull. Amer. Mus. vol. iv. p. 149, 1892. 
