aio ` 
1894.] Vertebrate Fossils. 241 
upper border as from the lateral, and moreover, an examination 
of material in our collection shows in molar one of Aphelops 
and molor two of Teleoceras an additional small projection 
directly opposite the large anticrochet, and which I believe to 
be the crochet and have so lettered it. See Plate II, figs. 5 & 
6. I would therefore amend Prof. Osborn’s dental characters 
to read as follows: Invariable presence of strong anticrochet 
and crista and absence of well defined crochet on superior 
molars. If this projection is not the crista, it is the crochet 
instead of the anticrochet, as considered by Osborn. 
APHELOPS FOSSIGER, Cope. 
I have referred a nearly complete skull in our collection to 
the above species. It differs from Cope’s definition of that 
species however by the following characters which may per- 
haps be considered of specific importance. In molar one the 
the mediau sinus is obstructed by a large crista and anticro- 
chet and a very small crochet, in molar two there is no trace 
of a crochet and at the bottom of the entrance of the median 
sinus there is a small tubercle. In molar three at the bottom 
of the entrance of the median sinus, there is an elongated 
tubercle placed transversely, and just inside this isa second 
much smaller conical tubercle. At about the middle and on 
the upper border of the zygomata there are processes curving 
inward and downward which probably served as attachments 
for the zygomatico-auricularis muscles. The molar teeth also 
are extremely large. Below are some of the ee 
Length of true molars .168 
Median length of second molar .062 
Greatest length of second molar 075 
Greatest width of second molar 07 
TELEOCERAS MAJOR, Hatcher. 
As stated in a preliminary notice,’ this genus is distinguish- 
ed from all previously known genera of the Rhinoceridx by 
Am. Geol., March, 1894, pp. 149-150. 
