324 0. C Marsh — Restoration of Coryphodon. 



Two recent papers by Mr. Charles Earle, on the Corypho- 

 dontidw, are of interest.* He treats of the teeth of this 

 group, especially of their variations and homologies, and 

 gives figures of some of the most characteristic forms. He 

 also discusses at length the various American species named, 

 and decides "that the large number of species which have 

 been founded by Prof. Cope should be greatly reduced ; and 

 that in many cases his species are to be considered merely 

 varieties, and that often these varieties are merely individual 

 variations in the same species due to age and sex." 



In a joint paper by Prof. H. F. Osborn and Dr. J. L. 

 Wortman, which appears in the Bulletin of the American 

 Museum, p. 81, 1892, the former discusses this group briefly, 

 especially some specimens recently collected in the Wind River 

 region by Dr. Wortman, and gives two figures of the feet of 

 Coryp ho don. In this paper, p. 118', the family Coryphodon- 

 tidce, established by the writer in 1876, is credited to Prof. 

 Cope, but with no reference as authority, while the preoccupied 

 names Pantodonta and AmUypoda are also used in place 

 of Coryphodontia and Amhlydactyla. 



In discussing the foot structure of Coryphodon (p. 121), 

 Prof. Osborn makes some very emphatic statements, which 

 are important if true, but he gives no facts to support them, 

 and there is good evidence that he is in error. One statement 

 is as follows : " the positions of the fore and hind feet of 

 Coryphodon were absolutely different, the fore foot was digiti- 

 grade like that of the Elephant, and the hind foot was planti- 

 grade like that of the Bear." These positions are shown in 

 his figures, which afford no evidence to support the statement, 

 especially in regard to the hind foot. Again, in giving the 

 characters of the feet, Prof. Osborn adds to what was already 

 known, that the "second metacarpal" has a vertical ectocunei- 

 form facet ; a statement likewise open to question. Another 

 assertion (p. 122) nearly as strange is, that in u The figure of 



the pes of Coryphodon given by Marsh the astragalus 



is represented as covering the entire upper surface of the 

 cuboidP A reference to the figure in question (Plate V, fig. 

 2) will, however, show this statement, also, to be wrong, as the 

 calcaneum covers about half the cuboid. This fact was clearly 

 stated in the text when the figure was first published. The 

 "unique caudal appendage" described by Prof. Osborn (p. 120), 

 and the suggestion in regard to its use, do not require special 

 notice here. The above points will be discussed later in the 

 present article. 



^Science, vol. xx, p. 7, 1892; aud Bull. Amer. Mus., vol. iv, p. 149, 1892. 



