0. C. Marsh—Principal Characters of Coryphodontide. 83 
These facts are important, since Cope has recently published 
a paper on the same subject, and given descriptions and figures 
of the brain case of Coryphodon which differ materially from m 
own.* He makes no reference to my article, although perfectly 
familiar with it. A comparison of his figures with the speci- 
mens mentioned above, shows at once that he has made most 
Serious mistakes in his observations. What he represents as 
Ing. Similar errors are apparent in other portions of the 
ately longer. The odontoid process of the axis is a short peg. 
The articular faces of the cervicals and dorsals are nearly flat. 
The candals indicate a tail of moderate length. 
The limbs of Coryphodon were comparatively short. The 
scapula is acuminate above, as in Dinoceras and the Ele- 
phant. The humerus is much less massive than in Dinoceras, 
but otherwise resembles it. The deltoid ridge extends beyond 
the middle of the shaft. The distal end of the humerus is com- 
pressed antero-posteriorly, and the ulnar side of the articulation 
18 much more prominent than the radial, thus approaching the 
Rhinoceros where it departs from Dinoceras. The radius is 
roximally smaller, compared with the ulna, than in Rhinoceros. 
ts distal end is larger than that of the ulna. 
The femur of Coryphodon is of the perissodactyl type, and 
has a distinct third trochanter. The tibia, when in position, 
d 
the Elephant, but was inclined at a moderate angle. The fibula 
Was entire, and its distal end articulated with both the astrag 
alus and caleaneum. 
‘ he feet of Coryphodon, hitherto essentially unknown, resem- 
ble most nearly those of Dinoceras, and can perha best 
illustrated by a direct comparision with them. In the follow- 
ing figures (see plate iv), the feet of these two genera are placed 
side by side, and in the same position. ‘The main points 
of difference between them are stated below. 
* Proceedings American Philosophical Society, p. 616, 1877. 
