PETERSON: A REVISION OF THE ENTELODONTIDZ 143 
respect, more analogous to the Hippopotamus. The sternum is of enormous size 
and there are osseous sternal ribs present. ‘The fore limbs are powerful and the 
skeleton in this region is not unlike that of Bison americanus. In the region of the 
fifth, sixth, and seventh cervicals the neck was of enormous vertical diameter. 
There are only four lumbar vertebrae present derived from the type and a 
fragment of the pubis represents all that was found of the pelvis. These parts were 
found in a pile of fragments left on the edge of the quarry by Mr. Cook who 
started to excavate in the fall of 1904. The pelvic material, which was found in 
quarry No. 1 in 1908, is used in this restoration and its anatomical features are 
thought to be practically correct. The right femur and certain bones of the manus 
were also found in quarry No. 1 and are here used for the purpose of accuracy. 
The right cuboid, the entocunciform and Mt. IV are derived from other individuals. 
The caudal region is restored throughout. 
The skeleton was mounted by Mr. Serafino Agostini of the paleontological 
staff, to whom much credit is due for the skill he has displayed in his work. 
In 1894 Professor Marsh published (64, pp. 407-408, Pl. IX) a restoration 
which is based on rather incomplete material and as a conseqtience a number of 
errors occur, some of which were pointed out by Professor Scott in his memoir on 
“Blotherium” (87, pp. 820-821). In Dinohyus hollandi there are unquestionably four- 
teen dorsal vertebrae, which were found in a continuous series. The character of the 
anterior sacral vertebra in comparison with the lumbars present in the type of Dino- 
hyus hollandi seems to indicate that there must be two vertebrae missing. ‘Two verte- 
bree have therefore been inserted (1. 3 and |. 6) which appears justifiable. Further- 
more, it is quite evident from Professor Scott’s publication (87), as well as from my 
own observations on the same material, that there are six lumbar vertebrae in Archxo- 
therium ingens. It would then seem that Marsh (l.c.) was correct as regards the 
number of presacral vertebrie of his restoration, but made a mistake in the division 
of the dorso-lumbar series, while Scott’s restoration (fig. 9) shows only thirteen dor- 
sal vertebree. In examining the Princeton specimen it occurred to me that the 
spines in the posterior dorsal region are too abruptly shortened and that there was 
probably an additional dorsal vertebra. 
In comparing the articulated skeleton of Dinohyus with that of Archwxotherium 
ingens (see fig. 9) it is at once seen that the former has a relatively larger head, 
shorter and heavier body, higher withers, and a shorter pelvis. Furthermore, the 
sagittal érest is higher posteriorly, which indicates a greater vertical diameter of the 
neck immediately back of the skull. Thus, it is seen that the Miocene genus had 
a relatively heavier neck than its Oligocene predecessor. 
