tfOTES OjST THE CANIDiE OF THE WHITE RIVER OLIGOCENE. 4lo 



45. The tail was very much as in such viverrines as Herpestes. 



46. The sternum is of a generalized fissipede character, without special resemblance 

 to either dogs or viverrines. 



47. The scapula has little resemblance to that of C'anis, being low and broad, with 

 spine placed nearl) r in the middle of the blade ; the metacromion is very large and the 

 acromion exceedingly long and prominent, from which it may be inferred that the clavi- 

 cles were less reduced than in the modern dogs ; the coracoid is very large. 



48. The humerus is much more viverrine than canine in appearance, having, like 

 Daphcenus, very prominent deltoid and supinator ridges, a low trochlea and entepicon- 

 dylar foramen, but no supratrochlear perforation. 



49. The radius is like that of Daphcenus, except for the immense styloid process. 



50. The ulna is much stouter than in the recent dogs and differs from that of 

 Daphcemis in having the distal radial facet sessile. 



51. The carpus contains a scapho-lunar which is quite like that of Cards ; the pyra- 

 midal is viverrine and the pisiform quite peculiar in shape ; a radial sesamoid appears to 

 have been present ; the trapezoid and magnum are canine, while the unciform is viverrine. 



52. The metacarpus has five elements, which are very short and slender like those 

 of the civets. 



53. The pelvis is, in general, canine, but primitive in the elongation of the post- 

 acetabular portion. 



54. The os penis is very large and shaped like that of Cryptoprocta and the muste- 

 lines. 



55. The femur is elongate and differs little from that of the recent dogs, except 

 in the presence of a small third trochanter and in the narrow, shallow rotular trochlea. 



56. The patella is wide, thin and scale-like, herpestine in shape. 



57. The tibia is of nearly the same length as the femur, and its distal end is like 

 that of Daphcenus and Dinictis, but more deeply grooved. 



58. The fibula is relatively stout. 



59. The general appearance of the pes is viverrine and has many resemblances 

 to that of Daphcenus and some to that of Ckinis. 



60. A well-developed hallux is present and the metatarsals exceed the metacarpals 

 in length much more than they do in Can is. 



61. The phalanges differ materially from those of Daphcenus in that the elaws 

 are little or not at all retractile ; the unguals have but rudimentary hoods. 



62. The skeleton of C. geismarianus was very heiqjestiue in proportions, while that 

 of C. gregarius was more like that of a very small fox in which the hind leg much 

 exceeded the fore leg in length. 



