O. C. Marsh—Additional observations on Dinocerata. 295 
testing the accuracy of these descriptions. The photographs of 
Prof. Cope’s Hobasileus, examined in connection with many similar 
remains in the Yale eum, make it evident that the various 
objections I have raised against hi re, almost without 
ct 
exception, well founded. is more recent errors, as well as those 
other known species. Judging from the descriptions, the name 
£. pressicornis Cope has apparently no better foundation. 4th. 
The genus Dinoceras Marsh is distinct from Uintatherium Leidy, 
although perhaps nearly related. 5th. The mammals of the above 
genera, and probably those of Megacerops Leidy, cannot be placed 
in the order Proboscidea, but constitute a distinct group, Dinoce- 
rata, which approaches the perissodactyls rather than the elephants. 
6th. The presence of a proboscis does not directly result from the 
osteological characters of this group, but is quite Inconsistent with 
hem, and the evidence is decidedly against it. 7th. The skull in 
the Dinocerata has no distinctive proboscidian features, and the 
subordinate similarity in the limb-bones I pointed out before Prof. 
ope wrote anything on the subject. 8th. The presence of canine 
teeth and horns was not alone stated by me to be characteristic 
short, or deeply excavated. 12. The frontal bones do not extend 
In front of the premaxillaries; their extremities do not form bony 
projections like shovels; and they do not support horns or pro- 
Cesses at both extremities. 13th. The anterior horn-cores are on. 
the nasal bones, and not on the frontals; and they are not com-. 
“sey externally of the mavxillaries. 14th. The middle pair of 
orn-cores, likewise, are not on the frontals, but on the maxilla-. 
ries, their inner inferior margin alone being formed of the nasals. 
15th. The orbits were not below these horns, but behind them, 
