Reviews — T)>\ Max Schlosser on the Ungulata. 327 



Prof. Flower in including all the recent Bhinoceroses and most of 

 the fossil ones in a single genus, as well as in uniting Paloplotherium 

 with Palceotlierium. We are glad to see the identity admitted of 

 Orohippus with Hyracotherium, and the suggestion that Eohippus may 

 also be the same ; but we are surprised at the retention of Pliolophus 

 (with which Orotherium is coupled) as distinct from Hyracotherium. 

 Mesohippus and Miohippus are rightly shown to be indistinguishable 

 from Anchitherium, and Protohippus from Hipparion. Some confusion 

 appears to exist in the author's mind with regard to PachynolopJius, 

 since he separates it widely from the so-called Propalceotlierium, 

 which Gaudry has shown to be identical. The confusion may be in 

 part accounted for by the retention in hyracotherium of the so-called 

 H. siderolithicus, which is really a PachynolopJius ; but it is difficult 

 to understand what forms Dr. Schlosser regards as the representatives 

 of the latter genus. The genus Tapiridus, which has been very 

 generally regarded as an Anoplotheroid, is referred to the Tapiridaa, 

 but we could wish for stronger evidence on the point. 



In the Artiodactyla the same "lumping" of families is observ- 

 able. Thus the author proposes (1) the AnoplotheriidEe, (2) the 

 Dichobunidae, which is subdivided into the Dichobunidae proper, the 

 Ceenotheriidas, Xiphodontidaa, Tragulidae, and Gelocidaa, (3) the 

 Tylopoda, (4) the Oreodontidee, (5) the Anthracotheriidae, and (6) 

 the Suidae. We are not quite clear as to the author's views with 

 regard to the Giraffidas, Cervidae, and Bovidae (which is split 

 into Bovidae, Antilopidae, and Ovidae) ; but they are all regarded as 

 descendants of the Gelocidae, and it is apparently intended that 

 they should be considered merely as subdivisions of that sub- 

 family, — a view which will hardly commend itself to the Eng- 

 lish school of zoology. The comparatively wide separation of 

 Xiphodon from Anoplotherium is in opposition to the view of Prof. 

 Butimeyer, which is based on the resemblance presented by the 

 former to the undoubted Anoplotheroid genus Dacrytherium ; and 

 we are inclined to give more weight to the remarkable resemblance 

 existing between the molar dentition of the three genera and 

 the affinity of their general carpal and tarsal structure, than to 

 the features of carpal and tarsal reductions respectively known as 

 adaptive and inadaptive. XipJwdon does, however, undoubtedly 

 show strong indications of affinity with the Caenotheriidae and the 

 Dichodontidae (Gelocidae), and thus indicates a transition from the 

 Anoplotheriidae to the Tragulidae. The author adopts the recent 

 view of not separating Eurytherium from Anoplotherium. LopJiio- 

 meryx, which was placed by Butimeyer between DicJiodon and 

 Gelocus, is referred to the Tragulidae, which also contains BachitJie- 

 rium ; LopJiiomeryx Gaudryi, we regret to see, has been made the 

 type of another new genus — Cryptomeryx. The Anthracotheriidaa 

 are taken to include Merycopotamus, and also the bunodont ElotJier- 

 ium {Entelodon), which is classed by Prof. Flower together with 

 Cebochcerus and Chceropotamus in the Choeropotamidae. The Suidae 

 is taken to comprise the two latter genera, together with the Dicoty- 

 lidae, Phacochoeridae and Listriodontidae, and the peculiar genus 



