276 DOUGLASS — FOSSIL MAMMALIA 



There are no complete metapodials. There arc; the proximal ends of one of the 

 smaller ones and the distal ends of eight of various sizes. The proximal portion of the 

 smaller metapodial, compared with the median ones, is larger proportionally than in the 

 pes of II brachyrhyncus (?) (Princeton Coll., 11162). The head is thick transversely, 

 triangular in section, conical at the top and larger than the shaft. The shaft, a little 

 below the head, is transversely oval. The distal ends of three; of the median metapodials 

 are much like those of Hyopotamus, but the dorsal surfaces of the trochlea arc; not so 

 convex or the groove above so deep, and the trochlea are not bent in toward the plantar 

 side as in Oreodon or Agriochcerus. The distal ends of two lateral metapodials are sym- 

 metrical. They are quite thick and do not appear to have; been in close contact with the 

 median ones. There was probably either a hallux or a pollex, as there are two distal ends 

 of very small metapodials. 



There are several portions of phalanges and two middle ones nearly complete. The 

 latter are short. The proximal articulating surfaces are slightly concave and. separated 

 by a low median convexity. The distal facets have a shal low groove. A lateral ungual is 

 asymmetrical. Its dorso-plantar is greater than its transverse diameter. It has approxi- 

 mately the form and size of one of the median ones of Oreodon eulbertsoni, but it is shorter 

 and the proximal facet is divided into two unequal areas. One of the median unguals is 

 only a little thicker planto-dorsally, but much broader-. The anterior part is gone, but so 

 far as shown the inner margin is nearly straight, while the outer curves inward toward 



the tip. 



Discussion of Relationship of Arbetothekium:. 



Until more complete material of this animal is found, or that of related forms, it 

 would be unwise to form a judgment as to its relationship. We can sec resemblances, but 

 these are far from being proof of relationship. There is enough preserved to show that it 

 is very different from any other American genus at least. The skull, so far as preserved, 

 is suggestively similar to that of Hyopotamus. The molars, too, aside from the absence of 

 the protoconule, resemble those of Hyopotamus. They seem to be much like those of the 

 Indian Merycopotamus. The premolars are different from those of Hyopotamus. The 

 atlas is not much like anything I know. The lower end of the fibula, the calcancum, 

 astragalus and cuboid are similar to Oreodon. The navicular and the metacarpals and 

 phalanges appear to be more like; those of Hyopotamus. There is no evidence of relation- 

 ship to Agriochoerus. 



Measurements. 



M. 



Lensth of molar-premolar series arranged, without, diastema ;. left side 18 ° 



T * .. . , T ,,, 0074 



Length of mcisor {\A I) 



Width of incisor (I* t) 00<t 



