PAL.EOSYOPS LEIDY, AND TTS ALLIED. 
269 
Cc)])e tlid not atteiiipt to determine Leidy’s original types, irom Avliicli the genus 
and species Palceosyops paludosus were first indicated. After studying Leidy’s orig- 
inal specimens, no^r in the National Museum, which he described,' and which later 
he figured^ I am convinced that they belong to the large species of Palaosyops ; 
that wliich Leidy subsequently named P. major. Second, that tlie smaller forms 
later referred by Leidy to P. paludosiis were quite distinct li'om his types of this 
species. Therefore, as the original specimens were called P. paludosus, and as they 
were identical with a form which he later called P. major, the hitter name is a 
synonym and must drop out. As Leidy’s name P. major was I'ery convenient in 
designating the relative size of the two species, we pro])ose to call the smaller form 
Palceosyops minor— \\\ q, P. paludosus, according to the later use of Leidy and others. 
I imiy also add that Cope’s P. Icevidens is a different form from this smaller 
species of Leidy, so that Cope’s specific name cannot be used for it. 
Cope^ accepts Marsh’s statement that the original specimens figured by Leidy 
belong to Limnohyus. This is, I think, an erroi’, as the teeth are much larger and 
correspond in every resjiect with Leidy’s P. major. Marsh’s statement that the teeth 
of his P. laticeps have the same general structure as those of Leidy’s smaller species — 
namely his P. paludosus, is also incorrect. I have examined both types, and I shall 
show later that the two forms are quite distinct — one approaching the Telmatotherium 
form of molar, the other type being more like the typical molar found in P. paludosus. 
INIarsh’s type of his genus Telmatotherium'^ agrees in all particnlars with the type ot 
Scott and O.shorn’s Lezirocephalus,^ so that the latter genus must become a synonym 
of Telmatotherium. I retain Scott and Osborn’s species T. (Z.) cultridens, as a good 
species, and it has very interesting characters Avhich place it rather lower in the 
scale than the T. validus of Marsh. The skull figured by Scott and Osborn in their 
report for 1877 as P. paludosus, should be referred to Marsh’s genus Limtiohyops. 
Its general form is very different from Palceosyops, as will be shown later. After 
carefully considering the matter of uniting the various genera into one, 1 am of the 
opinion that Telmatotherium may be retained, and that Lymtiohyus, or as it is now 
called, Lymnohyops, should not have a generic value equal to that of Telmatotherium. 
The type specimen of the genus Limnohyops is very closely related to that of 
Palceosyops in the teeth structure, and we have good reasons for supposing that the 
presence of the hypocone on the last superior molar is a transition character, which 
is not a\-ailable for generic definition. The j)resence of a rudimentary hypocone on 
the last superior imdar of Palceosyops paludosus is not an uncommon occurrence. 
The premaxillary regions of Limnohyops and Palceosyops are identical, although the 
skull contours are very dillei’ent. The generic reference of Leidy’s smaller species 
'Proc. Acad. Xat. Sci. Phil. 1870, !>. 113. 
2U. S. Geol. Survey of the Ter., Yol. 1, 1873, Plate V, fig. '5, and PI. XXIII, figs. 3-6. 
^Tertiary Vertehrata, i). 698. 
*Ain. Jour. Science and Arts, Yol. lY, pub. July 22nd, 1872. 
^E. M. Museum Bulletin. Xo. 1, Eeport Princeton Scientific Expedition, Sept. 7th, 1878. 
