100 Bulletin Reneriian Museum of Natural History. [Vol. XXXIV, 
retain a species already made, although not to make a new one. On this 
ground therefore J retain Trouessart’s species although a careful comparison 
of Boule’s figures and description fails to reveal any valid specific characters. 
The Fayiim “ Pachyena.”’ Schlosser has 
referred to “ Pachyena oder Paleonictis ?”’ 
a scapholunar bone from the Fayiim Oligo- 
cene; a reference which I criticized in re- 
viewing his preliminary paper, on the ground 
that: 
(1) In Pachyena the scaphoid and lunar 
were certainly separate, nor is there any evi- 
dence nor probability that they were united 
in Paleonictis. 
Hees (2) Both genera are of Lower Eocene 
Pei. Bike aenae Te and belong to families of Creodonta of 
derosa, astragalus, superior view, which no trace has been found in the Fayim 
two-thirds natural size. From the  faina or the Oligocene Epoch, and in which 
type specimen. ; a 
the scaphoid and lunar were never united 
No./5228 
so far as we know. 
(3) On the other hand, we know that the Hyzenodonts were repre- 
sented by several genera in the Fayiim and are the only Carnivora posi- 
tively known in this fauna; 
(4) The Hyenodonts are the only family of Creodonts known to sur- 
vive into the Oligocene, and in Hyenodon at least the scaphoid and lunar 
were sometimes united.! | | 
From the above facts of record I concluded that “the probabilities, 
therefore, are greatly in favor of this scapholunar representing a large 
Hyeenodont.” 
In Dr. Schlosser’s final memoir he replies to the above criticism at some 
length, and figures the bone in question. He has somewhat shifted his 
ground, attempting to prove that it is a descendant of Pachyena or Pale- 
onictis, the argument being that it does not agree in form with the H yenodon 
scapholunar illustrated by Wortman,? and does not agree in size with the 
radius that Schlosser attributes to Pterodon, and that the other known 
genera are too small. 
Apparently Dr. Schlosser regards this as a complete answer to my 
Sie That is, according to recorded statements of Cope and Wortman. I do not desire to be 
understood as indorsing this assertion. 
71902, Amer. Jour. Sci., XIII, 136, fig.91. Wortman’s figure is very different in form and 
proportions from the conjoined scaphoid, lunar and centrale in our yenodon skeletons, 
but is not unlike the scapholunar of Daphenus, to which genus I suspect that the bone 
really belongs although found with fragments of jaws and bones of H yenodon crucians. 
