482 The American Naturalist. [June, 



the Calcaire Grossier of Aisne than that in which this skeleton was 



The most abundant species of Paloplotherium found in France is the 

 P. minus. This species was described by Cuvier and referred to the 

 genus Palceotherium, but it was later raised to a generic rank by Owen, 

 and also by Pomel. In regard to Paloploth* Hum minus it is of import- 

 ance to attempt to show that the teeth and feet of this species are prop- 

 erly associated. Osborn and Wortman 5 have lately questioned the 

 correctness of this association, and furthermore these authors think it 

 probable that the feet referred to P. minus by the French Paleontolo- 

 gists really belong to a small species of Lophiodont-like animal, closely 

 related to the American genus Colodon. I cannot agree at all with 

 these authors in this supposition, as I believe that the feet tending to 

 monodactylism found in the Upper Eocene of France, which are re- 

 ferred by the French Paleontologist to Paloplotherium, are correctly 

 identified. 



Among the large collection of fossils in the Jardin des Plantes, many 

 of which formed the types of Cuvier, and which were described by him 

 in his " Ossemenes Fossiles," there is a nearly complete skeleton re- 

 ferred by Cuvier to Paloplotherium minus; this is figured by Cuvier 6 

 and also by Blainville. 7 In this specimen the feet are absent, but there 

 are a few teeth embedded in the skeleton which have the same struct- 

 ure and size as those referred to P. minus. Again, Blainville figures 

 an anterior extremity of a small Perissodactyles which he refers to Palo- 

 plotluriurn minus, and this specimen is of the same size as the fore limb 

 of the nearly complete skeleton of P. minus described by Cuvier. Both 

 these specimens are from the Gypse de Paris. However, since the time 

 of Cuvier, Paloplotherium minus has been found in great abundance 

 in the Upper Eocene of Debruge. The collection in the Jardin des 

 Plantes from Debruge contains a large number of jaws and teeth, and 

 portions of limbs containing numerous metapodials. These bones cor- 

 respond exactly in size with those of the original skeleton described by 

 Cuvier, and I am of the opinion that this is pretty conclusive evidence 

 that the skeletal parts of Paloplotherium minus and the teeth are cor- 

 rectly associated. Moreover, I am not aware that any small Lophio- 

 dont Perissodactyle occurs in the Debruge Eocene. I use the term 

 " Lophiodont " strictly in the sense as applied by Osborn and Wort- 



