HOLLAND AND PETERSON: OSTEOLOGY OF THE CHALICOTHEROIDEA. 199 
In the year 1833 J. J. Kaup (‘“‘Ossements Fossiles de Darmstadt,” 2me Liv- 
raison, p. 6, Pl. 7) erected a new genus under the name Chalicotherium (Beast of 
the Gravel), and referred to it, as the first species, an animal, which in the first 
Livraison of the same work he had described as Lophiodon goldfussi. He also 
described a smaller form to which he gave the name Chalicothervum antiquum. 
The latter species by some subsequent writers has been regarded as synonymous 
with C, goldfussi. Both of the specimens named by Kaup came from Eppelsheim, 
the locality at which the ungual described by Cuvier had been found. Kaup 
recognized the fact that the teeth, which were the skeletal parts upon which his 
genus was established, were in certain respects similar to those of the Rhinocerotide. 
For half a century or more the bones of the feet and the legs of these and allied 
animals were accepted by comparative anatomists, following the teaching of 
Cuvier, as belonging to edentate animals, while the bones of their skulls were 
regarded as belonging to the Ungulata. 
In 1872 Professor Theodore N. Gill (Smithsonian Miscellaneous Collections, 
Vol. XI, p. 71) referred Chalicotherium to the Artiodactyla, and erected the super- 
family Chalicotheroidea for the reception of this and allied forms. Subsequently 
Professor E. D. Cope placed the Chalicotheriidz among the Perissodactyla, as one 
of the families of that suborder. His teachings were accepted at the time without 
dissent by those who were competent to pass an opinion upon the subject. 
In the year 1887 a very curious discovery was made by Mons. H. Filhol, one 
of the most accomplished and diligent students of paleontology in France. He 
had for some time been impressed by the fact that although the bones of the feet 
of Macrotherium, which name had been given by Lartet to the supposed “gigantic 
pangolin,’”’ were not uncommon, and the dentition of Chalicotherium was tolerably 
well known, no discovery of the feet of the latter, nor of the head of the former, 
had been announced. ‘This appeared to him to be the more singular because the 
remains of the two genera were usually associated with each other in the same 
strata. He began to suspect that an error had been made in disassociating the 
two forms. The correctness of his suspicion was remarkably confirmed in 1888 
by the discovery at Sansan of the crushed skeleton of a specimen, which being 
completely isolated from all other material, revealed the limbs and vertebre of an 
animal referable to Macrotherium associated with the skull of an animal referable 
to Chalicotherium in such relation to each other that no doubt was left in the mind 
of the discoverer that they belonged to one and the same animal. ‘The conclusion 
reached by Filhol was supported by the discovery about the same time by Monsieur 
Charles Depéret in a pocket at Grive-Saint-Alban of a skeleton of Macrotheriwm 
