320 ' MEMOIRS OF THE CARNEGIE MUSEUM. 
caudals belonging to Dinohyus are also of a well-known type and can be positively 
identified when found; this is also true of Stenomylus, perfectly articulated and 
complete skeletons of which in considerable number were recovered near by in 
the summer of 1908. After the caudals which apparently ought to be referred 
to these genera have been eliminated, there remain but two specimens representing 
caudal vertebrzee which, because they apparently belong to none of the genera 
mentioned, might with plausibility be referred to the genus Moropus. The ac- 
companying figures (Figs. 73 and 74) give the outlines of these bones. The exist- 
ence of the neural arch though evidently open shows that they must have occupied 
a position well forward in the caudal series. They were possibly the sixth or 
seventh in the series, reckoning backward. In form they somewhat resemble 
the caudals of Dinoceras, though the flattened lateral processes do not have as 
great an antero-posterior diameter as in Dinoceras. They must have apper- 
tained to small individuals. As has been remarked on p. 250 the tail which has 
been given to the restored skeleton is “‘a work of fiction,’’ based in part upon these 
two bones and the analogies of the caudal region in other perissodactyla. 
Tue PrELvic GiRDLE. 
(Plates LVIITI-LX1.) 
The pelvis of Moropus is represented, in addition to the more or less perfect 
remains of the sacra of several individuals which have already been described, 
by the following material: 
Catalog No. 1706 (Moropus elatus). 
A complete pelvis including sacrum which has been utilized in the mounted 
specimen. 
Catalog No. 1701 (Moropus petersont). 
The left os innominatum of a specimen which has been used in effecting the 
restoration of the hind foot and limb of Moropus petersoni. With this the writer 
associates specimen No. 1795, which is a right innominate bone. ‘The two bones, 
the one in the restored hind limb and specimen No. 1795, apparently fit each 
other, and when placed together they show that the pelvic aperture is much smaller 
than is the case in specimen No. 1705. This caused the writer to believe that we 
have therefore corresponding portions of the pelvic arch of both a male and female 
individual of the same species. 
