159 FOSSIL MAMMALS OF THE ORDER DINOCERATA. 
cates that these specimens are the posterior horn-cores of other _ 
species. Many of the characters given by Prof. Cope in his de- 
scription of these animals do not indeed apply to the other known 
species, but it is evident he has made several serious mistakes in 
his observations. He has likewise been especially unfortunate in 
attributing to the Dinocerata characters which they do not possess ; 
and hence his conclusion, that all these animals are true Probos- 
cidea, and possessed a proboscis, is quite erroneous.* In his 
references and dates, also, Professor Cope has shown the same in- 
accuracy that has marred his scientific work. It is important, 
therefore, that his mistakes on these subjects should be promptly 
corrected, especially such errors as the following: What Prof. > 
Cope has called the incisors are canines, and hence ‘ea statement 
that there are large ineisor tusks, but no canines, should be re- 
versed. 2d, the stout: horns he described are not on the frontals, 
but on the maxillaries. 3d, The orbit is not below these horns, 
bi ehind them. 4th, The occiput is not vertical, but oblique, the 
occipital crest projecting behind the condyles. 5th, ‘The temporal 
fossee are not small posteriorly. 6th, The great trochanter of the 
femur is recurved, although Professor Cope says not. 7th, The 
spine of the tibia is not obtuse, but wanting. 8th, The nasal 
bones in the Dinocerata are not exceedingly short, but much elon- 
gated. 9th, The malar bone does not form the middle element $ 
the zygomatic arch, but the anterior, as in the tapir. 10th, 
: ` frontals do not have a great prolongation forward, and it is very 
se doubtful if they support horns or processes at both extremities. 
F e. nasal bones are not deeply excavated at their extremi- 
2th, The genus Dinoceras was not originally referred to 
issòc eE bat to a new order, 13th, The type species of 
his orde ot. described as as Titanotherium anceps, but as 
a Pi carer ROER à difference of importance, as the reference 
was merely provisional, and the characters given pointed, not to 
the Perissodactyls, but to Proboscidians. 14th, The date given 
to Hobasileus (August 20th, 1872) is not correct, as stated on | 
Professor Cope the pamphlet containing R 1 6th, The 
ation I made on this subject before the Anena Philo- 
cal Society was not AES 30th, 1872, but D December 20th, 
' ia Academy, Jan. 14, mE - 
