Vol. 6 J Merriam: Virgin Valley and Thousand Creek. 



295 



into two terminal prongs and that the outer or sheath portion of 

 the horns of Antilocapra divides seems not to be a valid ground 

 for comparison, as the horn-core in Antilocapra is not divided. 

 That the horn-core of Antilocapra may have been divided orig- 

 inally, the anterior prong of the core afterward disappearing in 

 that genus is possible, but we have as yet no evidence to show 

 that such has been the actual course of evolution of the horn. If 

 any relationship is suggested by the divided tip it would seem 

 most natural to associate the form of horn seen here with the 

 simpler types of Merycodus. 



Associated Remains of Skeleton and Dentition. — Associated 

 with the peculiar horn no. 11893, there are many parts of the 

 skeleton and dentition representing several small antelope-like 

 individuals. Although these parts have not been obtained in 

 such association as to indicate that they certainly belong to 

 llingoceros schisoceras. and they may be found to represent sev- 

 eral species or genera, by process of exclusion they suggest cer- 

 tain possibilities as to the character of this species and of other 

 antelope-like forms of this region. 



All of the fragments of teeth found associated with these 

 remains represent hypsodont molars of about the same stage of 

 advance as those of Antilocapra. The best preserved specimen 

 in this collection is the outer wall of a third upper molar. The 

 tooth is considerably smaller than in the specimens referred 

 tentatively to Sphenophalos, and the outer styles are a little more 

 prominent. The association of hypsodont molars of the Antilo- 

 capra type with the antelope-like remains from Thousand Creek 

 has thus far been a rale without exception. 



The femur is known by fragments representing the proximal 

 and distal ends. The proximal portion of the articular surface 

 of the head is elongated transversely about as in the pronghorn. 

 The distal end does not differ essentially from that of the femur 

 in the pronghorn. 



The proximal end of the tibia differs from the pronghorn in 

 the presence of a well-marked emargination in the overhanging 

 border of the postero-internal portion of the proximal face. The 

 proximal rudiment of the fibula is a little smaller than in the 

 pronghorn specimen available for comparison. The distal end 



