NOTE ON THE GENUS HYLOPUS OF DAWSON. 
251 
in the first track of the series where the print of the hind foot 
overlaps that of the fore foot; and a partial exception is seen in 
the second pair of footprints where the third digit is flexed, 
apparently by coming in contact with the fore foot before that 
had been removed to make another step. In the succeeding 
footsteps of the series it will be observed that the toes are not 
bent, for in these cases the two feet did not interfere. 
The reduction in the number of the toe marks of the hind foot 
in such ungulate forms of moderate size as Hylopus cannot be 
traced to forms with fewer toes, for though there are several 
genera that possess five toes on the hind foot, I know of no genus 
hitherto described with four, except the blunt-toed genus Nanopus. 
But in species of a smaller size, Ornithoides presents us with a 
form in which the three master toes of each foot, only, are repre- 
sented in the foot mark. Further than this the reduction in the 
number of digits seems not to have gone ; at least the author is 
unacquainted with any Carboniferous species having a smaller 
number of toe prints than three. 
In offering conjectures about the known animals which might 
be represented by these footmarks. Sir William Dawson, in his 
Airbreathers,” compares H. Logani to Dendrerpeton, but in 
his latter work, in the Transactions of the Royal Society of 
Canada, he favors the view that the Microsauria, notably Hyler- 
peton and Hylonomus, are the creatures which most likely left 
these footmarks. These Sir William separates from the Labv- 
rinthodonts, as their teeth do not have the involved foldings of 
the enamel which Labyrinthodonts possessed. Other writers 
uoiisider the Microsauria as a section of this order. In any case 
the footprints of Hylopus conform more to those of Amphibia 
than to those of Reptiles. 
Since writing the above, I have received a letter from Prof. 
Geo. T. Kennedy, of King’s College, Windsor, N. S., who has ex- 
amined the original of Hylopus Hardingi in the museum of that 
college; and he states positively that there is no basis for a fifth 
toe in the print of the fore foot. The slight protuberence in the 
cast of that foot in one of the figures, he says merely represents 
one of numerous little projections scattered over the stone, and 
