PETERSON: NEW CARNIVORES FROM MIOCENE OF WESTERN NEBRASKA 245 
appear quite narrow transversely and crowded over to the fibular side of the 
posterior face. ‘The fossa is not very deep and is partly surrounded by the great 
trochanter. The latter is not as prominent as in Canis, which may be due to 
individual variation, as I find in the Amherst specimen that the digital fossa and 
greater trochanter are more nearly of the proportionate size seen in the recent form. 
The lesser trochanter is prominent and located on the posterior face near the tibial 
angle as in Canis, while in the Amherst specimen it is situated more directly poste- 
riorly. These differences may be due to individual or possibly to specific varia- 
tions. The third trochanter is not present; while in Daphenus it is apparently 
represented, though small; in fact Mr. Hatcher in his description * did not regard 
this eminence as being the third trochanter, but in his illustration (G86 PIP SL Xe 
fig. 1) he faithfully indicates the tubercle as it appears on the specimen. Dr. Eyer- 
man definitely states that Daphanus has a third trochanter,” while Professor Scott 2° 
did not have material of this genus sufficiently complete to fully demonstrate its pres- 
ence or absence. The shaft of the young individual referred to above is rather slender, 
which is due to the immaturity of the animal and must not be regarded as an estab- 
lished character. The shaft of the Amherst specimen is long, slender, arched forward, 
and has a very prominent and rugose ridge on the fibular angle, which extends nearly 
throughout the entire length of the shaft, as in the lion. The linea aspera is also 
well defined.. In No. 1589a the lower portion of the shaft broadens more gradually 
toward the distal end than is the case in the Amherst specimen, which again may 
be due to the immaturity of the specimen in the Carnegie Museum. ‘The distal end 
of the latter has slipped off, as stated above, and as also indicated in the accompany- 
ing figure (fig. 42). The condyles in No. 1589a are moderately expanded laterally 
and posteriorly, which is a feline rather than canine character, while in the Amherst 
specimen the condyles are well extended back of the vertical line of the shaft, as in 
Canis. These variations may possibly be due to the differences in age of the two 
specimens. The rotular trochlea is no wider in proportion than in Canis, but is 
somewhat shorter. The intercondylar notch is quite deeply excavated and slightly 
oblique in position. 
Patella. — This bone is not very well represented in the material of the Carnegie 
Museum. One patella which was found among the surface fragments is proportion- 
ately narrower and thicker than that bone in Daphenus and, though larger, is quite 
similar to that in Canis. 
18 66 
Oligocene Canidz,’’ Memoirs Carnegie Museum, Vol. I, pp. 88-89, 1902. 
® American Geologist, Vol. XIII, p. 279, 1896. 
* Trans. Amer. Philos. Society, Vol. XIX, p. 350, 1898. 
