NO. 2 A STUDY OF MENISCOTHERIUM — GAZIN 7 



He was evidently not satisfied with the fragmentary evidence of foot 

 structure available to Cope. Moreover, upon description of the feet 

 of the meniscotheriid "Hyracops socialis" by Marsh (1892), Osborn 

 (1892a), in spite of the many discrepancies, concluded that the 

 structures displayed supported a chalicothere relationship, appealing 

 to the time interval separating the known materials of the two groups. 

 It seems evident, however, that he nevertheless retained the Menisco- 

 theriidae in the Condylarthra at that time because in 1895 (with 

 Charles Earle) he suggested that this family as well as the Peripty- 

 chidae should probably be removed from the order, although no 

 different allocation was made. By 1907 Osborn's conviction con- 

 cerning chalicothere relationship seems to have weakened because, 

 while in one place (p. 87) he states that, "It is thus suggested that 

 M enisc otherium may be related to Chalicotherium" ; on another page 

 (184) appears, "However recent observations tend to show that 

 these resemblances [in teeth] are not indicative of genetic relation- 

 ship but that the chalicotheres have more probably been derived 

 from lower Eocene titanotheres." 



Weber (1904) and Abel (1914) in textbook treatment followed 

 Schlosser and the earlier conclusions of Osborn in believing that a 

 close genetic relationship existed between M enisc otherium and the 

 chalicotheres. Weber's classification included Meniscotheriidae in 

 the Condylarthra with full ordinal status for the latter, but Abel 

 (1914) substituted Protungulata for the ordinal name, including it 

 under the superorder Ungulata. This arrangement, of course, pre- 

 vailed in Abel's revision of Weber's text in 1928. 



It appears that neither Matthew nor Gregory followed Osborn in 

 his interpretation of the relationships of M enisc otherium. Matthew 

 in 1897 pointed out the various possibilities that had been suggested, 

 and Gregory (1910) noted that, "The manus of M enisc otherium has 

 no suggestion of the Chalicothere type, . . ." and (1920) that 

 M enisc otherium was obviously "not ancestral to the titanotheres, and 

 probably not to the chalicotheres." Matthew made no particular 

 investigation of meniscotheres but in 1899 was concerned that the 

 foot material of M enisc otherium, probably that in the Cope collection, 

 did not agree with illustrations by Marsh for "Hyracops." How- 

 ever, Granger in his taxonomic revision of the species of M enisc o- 

 therium in 1915 pointed out errors in reconstruction of the "Hyra- 

 cops" carpus, concluding that there was no reason for distinguishing 

 "Hyracops" from M enisc otherium. 



Ameghino (1893) was particularly critical of the concept that 



