FOSSILS OF THE GRAVEL SERIES: AUCHENTIA. 249 
ation of the same bone in the lama, and is about the size of that in the 
camel. Perhaps it belonged to a small individual of the preceding extinct 
form; probably to a smaller species. It is three and a half inches long, one 
and a half wide at the proximal end, and one and a quarter wide at the distal 
end. The articulation of the latter is not expanded beneath, as in the camel, 
for the apposition of the sesamoid bones. 
6. The proximal three fourths of a metacarpal, probably of a deer. It 
is of rather more robust proportions than the corresponding bone of the 
Virginia deer. 
7. An incisor tooth of a small horse, partially imbedded in a coherent 
mass of gravel, which also contains the impress of a nut-like fruit. 
8. Portion of the tibia of a small horse, probably pertaining to the same 
individual as the tooth just mentioned. 
9. The lower extremity of a metacarpal, probably of the same horse. It 
is proportionately thicker and less wide than in the corresponding bone of 
the domestic horse. The articulation is one and a half inches wide, and 
sixteen lines fore and aft at the median ridge. The equine remains perhaps 
belong to a Llipparion. 
10. A few fragments of undetermined bones of other animals. 
Among the collection of fossils in the cabinet of Wabash College, purchased 
of Dr. Yates, and submitted to Dr. Leidy for examination, there is a well- 
preserved series of lower molar teeth,* which from their size and constitution 
would appear to belong to a species of lama exceeding in size not only the 
existing lama, but also the camel and Palauchenia. The question then arises, 
as Dr. Leidy remarks:+ Whether these teeth belong to Auchenia Calforiuca, 
Palauchenia magna, or to a third species? He adds: “The proportions of the 
bones upon which the former was founded indicate an animal one third larger 
than the camel, but the teeth above noticed might belong to an animal but 
little exceeding a large camel or the P. magna. If the characters assigned 
to the latter as a genus are correct, it is clear that the series of teeth from 
California do not belong to the same animal, and they then could only per- 
tain to a small individual of Auchenia Culifornica, or to another species rather 
larger than the existing camel. Under the circumstances, until further light 
is thrown on the subject by the discovery of additional material, we may sup- 
pose that two large species of lama, perhaps exclusive of Palauchema magna, 
were once inhabitants of the western portion of the North American conti- 
* Figured in Contributions, &c., PlateeX XX VII. Figs. 1, 2. t 1. c., p. 256. 
