1893.] Recent Laterature. 251 
species and three genera, viz., Coryphodon Owen, Ectacodon Cope, and 
Manteodon Cope. 
Mr. Earle’s conclusion that the supposed genus Bathmodon is not 
distinct from Coryphodon may be well founded, as the material at his 
disposal is better than mine. The difference in the forms of the astragali 
of the two types is, however, greater than is usual in a single genus, and 
is seen in material from all localities. The character on which the 
genus Metalophodon rests is a strong one, provided it be constant. 
Mr. Earle says it is not constant, and if his material demonstrates this 
to be the case the genus must be abandoned. I do not, however, think 
that he demonstrates his case in the paper under review. 
Let us now see the evidence on which he reduces my reputed twenty- 
one species to ten. In the first place he fails to state that I had 
already reduced two of the names to the rank of synonyms, leaving 
nineteen species to my credit ; that is to say, nine specific names remain 
which are alleged to be superfluous. One of these is, however, admitted 
to be good by Mr. Earle. He refers C. simus and C. latidens to 
C. elephantopus, but says also that the former two are “quite radically 
distinct.” Both cannot, therefore, be synonyms of the same species 
unless “ things not equal to one another are equal to the same thing.” 
I described the lower molars which probably belong to the C. elephan- 
topus, and they are totally different from those of the C. latidens. The 
superior last molar of C. simus is different from that of the C. elephan- 
topus. The three species are in my opinion well distinguished. This 
reduces the supposed superfluous names to seven. 
Mr. Earle does not admit the Metalophodon armatus for reasons 
which are insufficient. As I took the greater part of the dental series 
from une decayed skull, and an almost equally large series from a sec- 
ond skull, and as the two series confirm each other, I believe the spe- 
cies to be one of the most distinct of the family. This reduces the 
supposed excess to six. As to the C. cuspidatus, the last inferior molar 
teeth of three individuals are now known, and they confirm each other 
not only by their characters but by their inferior size. Mr. Earle 
admits this species with doubt. The C. marginatus is rejected by him 
as probably founded on a milk tooth of C.anaz. But it is not a milk 
tooth,® but an unworn permanent tooth of a species of hardly half the 
bulk of the C.anax. Coryphodon did not possess milk teeth of this 
form. The surplus is now five names. There are three forms of 
approximately similar and smaller size, viz., C. latipes, C. molestus and 
6] have represented the milk dentition of Coryphodon on Plate liv, fig. 3- 
of the U. 8. G. G. Survey, Report Capt. Wheeler, iv, 1875. 
