No. 527] 



NOTES AND LITERATURE 



TIM 



secure priority for the results of Dr. Schlosser's studies over the 

 concurrent investigations of other authors, it is unfortunate that 

 other authors, however well disposed, can not accept his species 

 as of this date, without violating the rules of nomenclature. 



Of more importance than questions of priority is Dr. Schlos- 

 ser's estimate of the affinities of these Fayum Hyracoids. They 

 differ widely from modern Hyraces in the general form and 

 proportions of the skull (and are singularly like pigs and anthra- 

 cotheres — W. D. M.) but agree very nearly in the basicranial 

 foramina and jaw articulation, as also in the general construc- 

 tion of carpus and tarsus: the feet are, however, more specialized 

 (as might be expected in view of the larger size of the animals). 

 They are not directly ancestral to the modern Ilyracidae, but 

 Pliohyrax of the Pliocene of Samos is apparently descended 

 from SagJiatherium. 



The author regards the Hyracoidea as having no near rela- 

 tions with any other order except the Condylarthra, and as in 

 certain important features cited they are more primitive than 

 any known Condylarth, the relationship can not he very close 

 even here. lie disbelieves in the affinity to Arxinoithcriuni sug- 

 gested by Andrews, holding that this genus is related to the 

 Amblypoda. Any relationship of the Hyracoidea to the Probos- 

 cidea through Mceritherium must he limited to a common deriva- 

 tion from Condylarth ancestry. Tie agrees with Sinclair that 

 the Hyracoids have no real affinity with the South American 



