Progress in Mammalian Palaeontology — Oshorn. 217 
Provisi'onaL Pky/oyenij of Ca>ne//Wae . 0/d 8c JVew l*Vor£d 
Worfiiian , iSfl Matthew t /fto/*- 
Tttcerr 
PhisfoertTc 
Camel us 
Au-cne/tia, 
Cametus 
AurA, 
Came/us Carneleps fiuehenia. 
C'ainelus Came to pi Aucften/'a. 
nen/'a. 
P/<0< 
P?ta.uctienia, 
Came /us P(taueAen'A, /tuc/ienia. 
fit latent 
Procameuts 
Mio/al/s 
Para ty/a/jus 
Altieamtlus JProeaine7uj Qfyrfaety/u) 
Alticarne.lus ffoUfa&tj. Mic/alis 
Para ty/opus 
O/ij 
ocenc 
Poe pro tneriuni 
Tseudo hit's Trofomtrifit Paraty/opus 
Totlrot/ierium^sPau. tu/opus 
To e Irot&eriu rn J 
J^epfotraouius Protylopai 
? flonTA'codon 
/ ParttbJutts 
LeptoTrtqului 
rToTulopui 
£oceng 
? Homaeoaart t 
? fonTo/tilis 
PIG. 5. 
The Polyphyletic Law and Local Adaptive Radiation Illustrated in the Phytogeny of 
the Camels. 
On the left is illustrated the older monophyletic view held as recently 
as 189S; on the right, the newer polyphyletic view developed in 1904 show- 
ing three distinct contemporary lines of Camelidae. 
fluviatile or channel beds, with chiefly lowland or bottom 
fauna, from seolian or backwater sediments, chiefly with a 
plains and cursorial fauna. The three subdivisions origin- 
ally observed by Hayden and Leidy are thus divided as 
follows : 
I. Fluviatile or Channel Beds. II. yEolian or Backwater 
Sediments. 
Upper, Protoceras beds Leptauchenia beds. 
Middle, Metamynodon beds Oreodon beds. 
Lower. Titanotherium beds. 
This separation was chiefly brought about by Matthew's 
careful analysis of the animals coming from these respective 
