A MK.MOIII UrON THE GENUS 
beautifully preserved, and shows interesting 
,vgio„. and j recent Tapirid^e Rhinocerohdce . There is 
,-harai-t.-i> quite diileivni ^ probably belongs to tins species. As 
aUia fuu- HiHTimen of ^ " wanting, it will be impossible to give the 
most of the dormds am nm )< ‘ there are enough of the vertebra' 
...act nn.nU.r of tlu ’ ^ eblracterize each. The vertebne are un- 
of tliesuUlivisioiis of t . skeleton, and their dimensions approach 
l..•»v,v than tliosc of the Tapir. The verhljral centra 
! '' 7 | ’ a ortneas aiul great elepth compared to those of Mmoccr^s. 
; 7 '7;,. ;,'!!;ive,-se. iTocesaes is striking. The lumbars on the 
I he gr.-i.t lm-a.lth „f Kkhwceros have deeper ceiitras with ratlier 
- aisiti.'.* r. sire .tf the articular pr^esses in some legions 
:Mh.'.'''ve' t' -hr,,l .a.h u.n is .p.iU- .liflerent from that of recent Perissoihictyles. 
- 1.. ver .-ll- of /' M-a-erttr tvm-tnhlc those of tlie lihinoceros as closc-lj- as tliose 
' , r " • .ot in tin- characters of the atlas, and as the vertebra' approach 
m.,'m ,,I.X'in si»- 'I"’'- ‘ 
lIM Xm, ligH. -iS-dl.) The bodies of the cervicals are very deep 
„ml shor'.. showing that tl.is species had a short and thick lu.k. Their arches are not 
.. muci, expanded as in Rhinoceros. In Diplacodon the deepening o the cervical 
is carrhsl still fartlier, and with it a great compression of the body inakmg 
i, very thin antens,H,st4'riorly. In Titanothcrium a greatc'r breadth and tliickness 
of the eervieal eentra is to la ol).served than in Diplacodon. 
\U„s —The atlas is very hroad and heavy, much more so than in Tapirns. 
ItM transvers,. pnaesses «,v C-ery wide and broadly extended, the articular cavities 
are extn-inelv wide and very ileep, Ix'ing wider than this region is in Rhinoceros-, 
hut in eontni.-*! with tlie latter, the articular surfaces for the axis are much narrower, 
just n-versing tin* diim'nsions of these two articular surfaces in Rhinoceros. Like 
tliat of the 'Pajiir tlie atlas of P. paliidosus exhibits two foramina for the first cervi- 
eal nerve; the lower one. for the inferior branch of this nerve, being connected with 
the iipisT hy a grisive. In Rhinoceros the lower foramen is merely represented b} 
a disqi notch, hut it is not enclosed as in this species. The transverse process of the 
atlas is iHTfonitisl at its ha.st‘ by a large vertebrarterial canal, resembling in this re- 
s|HS't the atlas of the 'I'apir. The floor of the neural arch shows a prominent tuber- 
osity. 'File under surface of the atlas is smooth and rounded. 
The . Ixis. — The gi'iieral form of the axis, specimen No. 10,279, resembles 
chwdy that of the Hhims'enis. Its neural arch is very high and the spine is broad, 
high ami ihx'p. Tlie neural spine is much higher than in the lihinoceros; it pro- 
jivts nion* |»osterinrly tlian in that form, but its antt'rior extension is not as great. 
I he ]M>st7.yga|N)ph vs<'s an* largi*r and more nearly vertical than in Rhinoceros. 
The surfiux* of the vertebra Ix'tween the latter articulations is deeply exca- 
vnt«sl. fonning a longitudinal gixxive which extends upon the surface ol the 
