ole Bulletin American Museum of Natural History. [Vol. XXXIV, 
4. Meniscotheriide. Lophoselenodont; first two upper molars quadrate, 
hypocones united with metaconules into a crest, remaining cusps crescentic; last 
upper molar triangular, no third lobe in last lower molar; premolars progressively 
molariform. Unguals narrow hoofs. Lower Hocene. 
5. ?Pleuraspidothertide. Bunoselenodont with two conical outer cusps and 
two crescentic inner cusps, conules vestigial; premolars progressively molariform. 
Astragalus with broad trochlea and short neck; unguals narrow hoofs. Paleocene. 
Systematic position doubtful; placed here on Schlosser’s authority.? 
A number of South American genera, mostly from the Notostylops 
beds, have been referred to the Condylarthra by Ameghino and other 
authorities. Some of them may belong to this order, but their family 
reference is uncertain. 
Family HYOPSODONTID. 
The position of this family was discussed at some length by Matthew 
in 1909.2. The family was not then removed from the Insectivora, where 
it had been placed by Wortman? and Loomis,* but the discussion of its ° 
relationship concluded with the statement: “Nevertheless I believe that 
its affinities are in ey closer to the Condylarthra than to the more 
typical Insectivora.” 
Additional skeleton material of Hyopsodus, including a well —— 
hind foot; serves to confirm the above somewhat tentative conclusion, and 
makes it advisable to remove the family to the Condylarthra. Its position 
in the Insectivora has always been anomalous, and could only be defended 
by regarding this order as a sort of catch-basket for primitive unspecialized 
placentals that could not be placed elsewhere. It also involved difficulties 
as to the position of the Mioclenide, which while generally regarded as 
primitive Condylarthra appeared to be nearly allied to the Hyopsodontide. 
The astragalus, while very primitive, is distinctly of the type peculiar 
to primitive Carnivora and Condylarthra, as opposed to the characteristic 
form of the Insectivora or that of the primitive Primates. The teeth exclude 
it from the Creodonta. In teeth, skull and skeleton characters it compares 
best with the most primitive among the Condylarthra, and the ungual 
phalanges, while they are claws rather than hoofs, are but little. different 
in type from those of Tetraclenodon. The only character somewhat difficult 
to reconcile with condylarthrous affinities is the short pubic symphysis. 
1 See Schlosser, 1911, in Zittel’s Grundziige der Paleontologie, zw. Anfl., IT Abth., s. 439. 
2 Matthew, 1909, Mem. A. M. N. H., Vol. LX, pt. vi, pp. 508-516. 
3’ Wortman, 1903, Amer. Jour. Sci., Vol. XV, p. 162. 
4 Loomis, 1907, ibid., Vol. XIX, p. 417. 
