SOME OF PROFESSOR MARSH’S CRITICISMS. 293 
nificance adduced by Prof. Marsh, since they point indubitably 
to the Perissodactyla and are common to all of the Eobasileide. 
Nevertheless they form but a slim basis of support for an order 
of mammals, especially when compared with the uniform testi- 
mony of proboscidian affinity derived from the cranial expansions, 
cervical vertebrae, sacrum, pelvis, hind leg, hind foot, scapula, fore 
leg, fore foot, and the concurrent evidence derived from dorsal and 
lumbar vertebrze, dentition and proboscis. 
If Professor Marsh wishes to see an equal or greater degree of 
variation in dentition in an order of mammals, let him compare 
Equus and Rhinocerus among Perissodactyla, or Bos, Moschus, 
Hippopotamus and Phacocherus in the Artiodactyla ; in the length 
of the nasal bones, Delphinus and Squalodon among Cetacea, or 
Homo and some of the lemurs; in the number of toes, Felis and 
Mustela, Ursus, étc., all members of the same orders. 
I should be glad, on the principle of De mortuis nil nisi bonum, 
to commend our critic’s remarks on the relations of this supposed 
order. But Professor Marsh’s ideas on classification are derived 
from unusual sources. The absence of incisor teeth no more re- 
lates these animals to the Artiodactyla than it relates the sloth to - 
the same order. The presence of paired horns no more consti- 
„tutes affinity to the ruminants than it does in the case of the 
“ horned-toad.” 
They are simply an analogous development on a probostidian 
basis. The few affinities which this group exhibits outside the 
Proboscidia, are to the Perissodactyla, as I was the first to show,, 
and among these, to Paleotherium and Rhinocerus. As to the name 
_ “ Dinocerata,” I have been induced to use it in the sense of a 
suborder, but am now satisfied that even this use is uncalled for, 
and shall employ the family name Eobasileide instead. On equally 
good bases the camel and Tragulus should be erected into new 
orders. 
» An explanation of the origin of this new order is probably to 
= found in the system of Mammalia proposed by Prof. Dana, 
_ some years since in accordance with his theory of ‘‘Cephaliza- 
‘ it ” While I have been able to see beauty in Professor Dana’s 
oe the least that can be said is that the application to 
the Ungulata has not been the correct one. The system has not 
‘been adopted, and is in the opinion of the best ner , 
entirely untenable. 
