210 MEMOIRS OF THE CARNEGIE MUSEUM. 
hind foot effected by Gervais from this material has been accepted for more 
than half a century as correct, and his drawing, first published in the Journal 
de Zodlogie, Tome VI, Pl. II, has been reproduced in almost all text-books on 
paleontology published since his day. Ger- 
vais, led by the belief, which prevailed at the 
time, that these animals were edentates, at- 
tempted in his restoration to give to the feet a 
plantigrade position. He completely ignored 
the articulating surfaces for the large sesamoids, 
of the existence of which he had no knowl- 
edge, and forced the proximal articulating sur- 
faces of the phalanges over the carina sepa- 
rating the sesamoids, an impossible position. 
I He also made the evident mistake of attach- 
Ly - AX, 
Fic. 4. Left forefoot of Macrotherium as ing the largest ungual phalanx to digit IV, 
restored by Gervais (to the left) compared 
with the same foot as it should be placed (to 
thus imparting to his restoration an exaxonic 
appearance. In the figures here given (Fig. 4) 
we have reproduced the restoration made by 
Gervais as it is given in Zittel, Handbuch d. Palzontologie, Bd. IV, p. 312, 
and a restoration in which we have employed the casts of the material used 
by Gervais, collocating them after the analogy of the manus of Moropus. 
The theory that the feet of the Chalicotheroids were exaxonic must fall. 
The main axis of the manus, supporting the stress of the body, was through 
the lunar, the magnum, and metacarpal III, the feet being diplarthrous, and 
mesaxonie. | 
Location of Types: Musée National d’Histoire Naturelle, Paris. (Casts of all 
this material are contained in the Carnegie Museum.) 
Geological Horizon: Sansan, Gers, France (Miocene). 
Gam kmenags 3. 
By eae 
superior molars subequal, external walls bent inwardly, vertical crests more 
rounded than in Moropus or Ancylotherium; humerus relatively slender, radius 
and ulna relatively long in comparison with other genera; distal articulating 
surface of radius subquadrate, not transversely elongate as in Moropus and 
Nestoritherium; Me. IV and Mt. IV longer than the other metapodials; tibia 
proportionally short; Mc. V wanting; trapezium absent; astragalu slow, 
broad, articulating with both the navicular and the cuboid; pes relatively 
short, 
the right). 
GENERIC CHARACTERS: Dentition I length and breadth of 
