260 MEMOIRS OF THE CARNEGIE MUSEUM 
more nearly in the ancestral line of Cynodesmus (C. brachypus).' Philotrox, Hy«no- 
cyon, and Enhydrocyon are removed from this line by the reduction of the premolars 
and other important features. Paradaphenus is a small form with long narrow 
skull, deuterocone of p* well internally, M* aligned with the outer cusps of the 
anterior molars, heel of lower molars basin-shaped, and tympanic bulla of propor- 
tionally larger development. 
Of the later American forms which are perhaps most closely related to Dapheno- 
don, Amphicyon americanus Wortman is quite well preserved and furnishes the most 
satisfactory comparison. This species, like the European, A. major, has the canines 
enormously developed and the premolars reduced when compared with Daphcno- 
don. Pz is less oblique in the alveolar border, M+ and M2? are apparently more 
nearly subequal in size, while M is aligned with the outside of the molars and is 
somewhat larger than in the latter genus. Amphicyon major of Europe is further 
differentiated from the present form by its short, broad, bear-like astragalus and 
sub-plantigrade hind feet. 
Amphicyon lemanensis is another well known European form bearing certain 
resemblances to Daphenodon swperbus, but which on closer study displays numerous 
differences, among which mention may be made of a larger size three-rooted and 
tri-cuspid M2, asmaller P4, proportionally longer, narrower, and higher skull, as 
well as a differently constructed axis, and other characters of importance. 
Amphicyon crucians, figured by Dr. Filhol (Ann. des Sciences Géologique, Vol. 
X, pl. 12, figs. 1-38, 1879) show only general similarity to Daphcnodon, so far as 
comparison can be made, the crowns of the premolars being higher and more pointed, 
and Pz having a basal tubercle, while that tooth in Daphawnodon has none. 
Cephalogale geoffroys is, with regards to the general features of the skull, more like 
Daphanodon, but the proportions and construction of the tubercular molars are dif- 
ferent, M® being absent, and this European form is apparently no nearer related to 
Daphenodon than for instance the American genus Ailwrodon. In fact the apparent 
relations observed between the European and American forms here compared should 
perhaps be regarded as purely superficial and due entirely to independent deyelop- 
ment without necessarily close relationship. 
With regard to the ancestry of the genus described above there can certainly 
be no doubt that we find in Daphenus from the American Oligocene all the 
required characteristics pointing more clearly to Daphwnodon than they are so far 
found in any known European forms, the ancestral types of the latter genera 
having perhaps already occupied contemporaneously these European regions for a 
long time. 
