146 MEMOIRS OF THE CARNEGIE MUSEUM 
reason why we should not expect a parallelism here as well as, for instance, in the 
odontoid process of the axis, the selenodont molars, the reduction of the lateral digits, 
and many other features, which have been independently acquired by several dis- 
tinct lines. 
Inregard to the ancestry of the Hntelodontidx Dr. Herluf Winge (92a, p. 134) seems 
to have reached a somewhat similar conclusion to that of Schlosser. From a study 
of the dental, cranial, and other skeletal characters of the Hntelodontide, Winge (I. ¢., 
p- 141) seems also to think that they perhaps were less in the habit of rooting in the 
earth than their ancestors and that, instead of the usual plant-food of the Ungulates, 
which they perhaps entirely excluded, they accustomed themselves to mixed, or 
flesh-food. In fact Winge (/. ¢., p. 141) states that the incisors, canines, and premolars 
served as grasping-tools and weapons similar to those of carnivores ; and (i. ¢., p. 142) 
that it is also not altogether unlikely that they lived in a similar manner to that of 
dogs, preying on live animals, or, when they discovered carcasses, fruits, etc., that 
they fed on them. That these animals actually seized live animals as their food, as 
Dr. Winge seems inclined to believe, may well be doubted, while that they fed on 
carrion and fruits, as well as on plants, is not altogether unlikely. 
Lydekker has very suggestively said (58a, p. 78) that the “food of the higher 
selenodont pigs consisted in great part of leaves and grass (which require finer tri- 
turation ...) while their bunodont allies feed, as we know, more generally on roots 
and tubers, and occasionally on animal matter. Hence it is probable that the 
muzzles of most of the selenodonts were less elongated than in the true pigs, which 
require to turn up the soil to obtain nutriment.” It has been, I think, quite con- 
clusively shown, by Scott (87, p. 278), and also in the description of the dentition of 
Dinohyus in the present paper, that the wear of the lower canines and incisors could 
not have been caused, in this animal, except by the habit of digging up roots. 
The dental structure of Tetraconodon, from the Siwalik hills of India, precludes 
its introduction into the family Hntelodontide and it has quite correctly been placed 
in a distinct family by Lydekker (58a, p. 78). This genus is apparently quite far 
removed from the Hntelodontide as is Achxnodon of the American Kocene. 
The phyletic and geologic position of the family Mntelodontide may then be 
expressed in a general way as follows : 
