ON SOME NEW AND LITTLE KNOWN CEEODONTS. 
173 
of the radius shows a broad, flattened and curved shaft with expanded and thick- 
ened distal end ; the articular face gives but very faint indication of division into sca- 
phoid and lunar facets. The character of this radius is decidedly more feline than canine. 
The first metacarpal is short and stout with a convex head for the trapezium ; it is pro- 
portionately longer, heavier and with a better developed trochlea than in the dog. The 
fourth metacarpal is very slender ; its surfaces for the adjoining metacarpals and for the 
unciform are almost exactly as in the dog. Professor Cope states that a specimen of 
Miacis in the Princeton museum shows the separate scaphoid and lunar bones, but this I 
think must be a mistake, as no such specimen is known to me. However, it is alto- 
gether probable that these bones are separate in Miacis, for I find them to be so in the 
closely allied genus Limnocyon, which Professor Marsh has very kindly enabled me to 
examine. 
The proximal end of the femur exhibits a small head, a moderate great trochan- 
ter, a large second and very distinct third trochanter ; the distal end shows nothing 
worthy of special mention. The tibia is shaped much like that of Didymictis, but 
has an almost flat astragalar face, with no tongue ; this corresponds with Professor 
Cope’s description of the astragalus. The internal malleolus is large and may have 
had a distal articular facet. The shaft of the fibula is slender, but the distal end is 
very heavy and forms a massive external malleolus Avith a large facet for the astrala- 
gus. A phalanx of the second row is rather long and compressed and resembles the 
corresponding bone in Mustela. The pes was obviously plantigrade and probably pen- 
tadactyl. 
The systematic position of the Miaddce has been much disputed. They differ 
essentially from all other creodonts in having but one sectorial in each jaw and these 
homologous Avith the sectorials of the Carnivora. On this account Dr. Schlosser* 
proposes to remove the Miaddce to the Carnivora, and this vieAV has much in its 
favor. Still important objections exist, particularly in the case of Didymictis. (1) 
The scaphoid and lunar are not co-ossified, and perhaps a central is present ; (2) the 
femur has a Avell-marked third trochanter ; (3) the astragalus possesses the typical 
creodont character of a pit for the malleolar process of the tibia ; (4) the specializa- 
tion of the lumbar zygapophyses is such as is found in no carnivore. To my mind 
these characters outAveigh those derived from the dentition. 
In the case of Miacis the material is not yet sufficient to enable us to 
decide its position. The presence of the full number of loAver incisors is, as 
Dr. Schlosser points out, shared by such forms as Stypolophus, Hyamodon, and 
probably many other genera. The dentition is certainly very closely like that 
of the true Carnivora, but * the structure of the feet wordd seem to be that of the 
creodonts. 
* Loc. cit. 
