1894.] Recent Literature. 869 
Our author next enumerates certain selenodont Artiodactyla from the 
Eocene system. Here we have an attempt to rehabilitate three 
generic names, enumerated, but not sufficiently or not at all described 
in the address of 1877 before referred to, and without mention of type 
species. The first of these (Eomeryx) has been since well described by 
Scott and Osborn, (in 1889), who show that the form is allied to Oreodon. 
'Their name, ( Protoreadon), has the right of first description and should 
be retained. The next genus, Parameryx, is described sufficiently to en- 
sure its adoption, if it is distinet from the various allied European forms, 
with which, as usual, no comparison is made. The species (“ P. laevis”) 
is not described, but future students are expected to identify it from 
two figures, one of an upper molar, and tbe other of the astragalus. A 
second supposed species is very insufficiently deseribed. Unfortunately 
for the adoption of the name Parameryx, the genus was, according to 
Marsh, described by Scott and Osborn in 1889 under the name of 
Leptotragulus. This publication contained the first description of the 
genus, hence the latter name must be retained. The third name of 
the address was * Oromeryx." - It was not described, nor was any type 
species mentioned. ‘The omission as to description is now supplied, but 
specific and family characters are confused by being mixed with the 
generic. 
Under the head of Miocene Artiodactyles, we find the genus Colore- 
odon Cope redescribed under the name of Agriomeryx as already 
noted. The only species named is not described, but a part of the skull 
is figured, which does not offer any difference of specific value from the 
C. feror Cope. The next form referred to is the suilline genus named 
but not described by Marsh in 1875 as Thinohyus. It has been im- 
possible hitherto to locate this genus from Marsh's paper, but the 
figures of a few molar teeth now given throw somelight on the subject, 
but as hitherto, no distinct description of the genusis given. Next fol- 
lows a fuller description than usual of a new species of Lepto- 
choerus Leidy. The author says that the molar teeth resemble those 
of the alleged genus Helohyus, but the figures show that they are very 
different. A suspicion of this seems to have been present to the author, 
who proposes to place the genus in a new family the “ Leptochoeride,” 
which as usual, he does not characterize. The last feat of Prof. Marsh 
which I shall notice, is that of naming a supposed new species of Pro- 
camelus on a figure of the caleaneum only! He states that the bones 
were found in the Pliocene of the John Day region of Oregon, meaning 
probably Loup Fork. Plivcene beds do not contain the genus Pro- 
camelus.—E. D. Corr. 
