1887] Geology and Paleontology. 657 
not present us with certain forms which should be placed with 
those which form the group Condylarthra.” 
These objects are realized with much fidelity, and the text is 
illustrated by a number of engravings, mostly from the casts 
made by Kowalevsky. The only exception to be noted in, carry- 
ing out of Proposition 1 is the omission of reference to the 
opinion that the Condylarthra are ancestral to the lemuroids as 
well as to the other Ungulata? The authoress gives a compre- 
hensive review of the important paper of Dr. Schlosser (reviewed 
in these pages 1886, p. 719), discussing especially the genus 
Hyracotherium. : 
M. Pavlow concludes her review with the following proposi- 
tions : 
1. The Condylarthra is a mixed group, of which the forms 
present characters of Ungulata and Unguiculata, and that it 
should be regarded as occupying the base of the genetic tree of 
both ungulates and carnivores. 
2. That Phenacodus primevus and P. puercensis are probably 
the ancestors of the Equidz. 
3. That Phenacodus wortmani should be excluded from this 
genus, and with Protogonia, which includes Hyopsodus paulus 
Leidy, should be placed among the Phenacodontide. 
4. That Anisonchus, Haploconus, and Hemithlaus are rather 
the ancestors of the Cs nivora; that their teeth separate them 
from other Condylarth. 
s. That Meniscotheriu ould belong to the group Propalz- 
otheriidz, and is perhaps synonymous with Propalzotherium. 
6. That Hyracotherium Ù sorinum should perhaps be regarded 
and second are in accord with current views on the respective 
subjects. As regards No. 2, the difference between Phenacodus 
wortmani and the P. primevus is not so great as might be sup- 
posed from my figure of the superior molar teeth. The anterior 
intermediate tubercles of the superior molars are present, but, as 
they are somewhat worn in the specimen, the artist did not rep-' 
~ resent them nearly distinctly enough. Nothing but the teeth of 
Hyopsodus are yet known, so that its position is uncertain. It. 
may be a lemuroid-or an artiodactyle. (4) The genera mentioned 
z Cope, Amer. Nat., 1884, 347; Origin of the Fittest, 1886, p. 343- I take 
occasion to remark that the omission of the Marsupialia from the direct line of 
ylogeny of the Condylarthra, which is justly commented on by M. Pavlow, is a 
pure inadvert be inferred from the text (p. 351) The error is correc 
t yuan nce, a 
at the second reference. 
