253—76 INDIAN TERTIARY AND POST-TERTIARY VERTEBRATA. 
from the modem representatives of the genus; indicating that typical dogs did 
not exist in Europe in the period of the upper eocene. From the lower and middle 
miocene of Europe there are apparently no described species of true Cams, 1 but the 
so-called Galecynus of the upper miocene, or lower pliocene, of (Eningen is considered 
by Prof. Huxley 2 to be not improbably generically identical with Canis 3 In N. 
America, according to Prof. Cope, 4 the dogs “of the lower miocene and middle 
miocene epochs belong to genera allied to, but distinct from, Canis, while those of 
the upper miocene (Loup Fork) and later horizons, pertain to the latter genus with 
few exceptions.” 5 From the eocene of Wyoming Prof. Marsh 6 has, however, 
described a species of dog under the name of Cams montanus 7 ; but since the species is 
described solely on the evidence of an upper premolar and a canine, it is impossible 
to say whether the generic determination is correct. From the upper pliocene of 
France there is the Canis borbonicus, Brav., 8 considered by Prof. Huxley 9 to be 
closely allied to the meionocreodont C. cancrivorus of South America. From the 
pliocene of the Val. d’Arno, Italy, two, species have been described by Prof. Forsyth- 
Major 10 under the names of C. eiruscus and C . falconeri : while in the pleistocene there 
are numerous species, and races, which need no further allusion. 
It thus appears that undoubted species of Canis are not known to have existed 
in Europe before the upper miocene or lower pliocene, and in N. America before the 
upper miocene period : and it may be added that the genus probably attained its 
maximum in the pleistocene and recent periods. 
Species 1 : Canis cuevipalatus, Bose. 
History. — In the year 1836 Messrs. Baker and Durand briefly described and 
figured 11 the skull and associated mandible of a small canoid animal to which they 
did not assign any specific name, although it was provisionally alluded to as Canis 
vulpes (?). Their description has been quoted in the “ Palaeontological Memoirs,” 12 
The two specimens subsequently came into the possession of the British Museum, 
and in 1880 were redescribed somewhat more fully by Mr. P. N. Bose, 13 who assigned 
them to a new species, under the name of Canis curvipalatus. As the original figures 
are small and unsatisfactory, and the specimens are not figured by Mr. Bose, they 
have been refigured in the present memoir, and will now be described. 
1 The so-called Canis lemanensis, C. leptorhynchus, 0. crassidens, etc., belong to Amphicyon. 
2 ‘Pro. Zool. Soc.,’ 1880, p. 280. 
3 The genus Galecynus, as mentioned above, is employed by Prof. Cope in a wider sense, embracing Cynodictis. 
4 ‘ Bui. U. S. Geol. Surv.,’ vol. VI., pp. 177-8. 
6 For a list of American fossil Canidce see Cope, “ Eep. U. S. Geog. Surv. W. of 100th Meridian,” vol. IV., pt. 2, p. 301. 
6 • American Journal of Science,’ 3rd ser., vol. II., p. 123. 
7 The name montanus should be changed, as it has long since been applied to the Himalayan Fox (Canis ( Vulpes) montanus , 
Pearson). 
8 Gerv., “ Zoologie et Paleontologie Francises,” pi. XXVTI., fig. 7. 9 Op. eit. 
10 ‘ Atti. Soc. Tosc. Sci. Nat.,’ vol. III., p. 208, pis. Xin.-IV. 
11 * Joum. As. Soc. Beng.,’ vol. V., pi. XXVII., figs. 9-12. 12 Vol. I., p. 341. 
13 ‘ Quart. Journ. Geol. Soc,,’ vol. XXXVI., pp. 134-6. This paper was read in December, 1879. 
