458 Bulletin American Museum of Natural History. [Vol. XXXIV, 
Upper canine small, pointed conical with small posterior heel. Upper premolars 
very wide transversely with large deuterocones. Lower premolars crowded, p2 quite 
small, p; larger, ps enlarged, robust with short heel and obscure deuteroconid. Molars 
very wide, mz reduced, m!~2 with rudimentary hypocones, small conules, no meso- 
styles. Lower molars with paraconid internal, distinct on mi, partly connate with 
metaconid on me2_3. Protoconid and metaconid opposite. Cusps of cheek teeth 
low, massive, the inner cusps of upper series and outer cusps of lower series set well 
in from margin. Lower jaw short, very deep anteriorly, shallowing under molars. 
Skull shorter than in Tarsius, orbits smaller and less prominent, braincase smaller. 
It is with much regret that I find it necessary to remove from the genus 
Anaptomorphus the well known species A. homunculus. Wortman in 1904 
expressed the opinion that it was probably generically distinct, but refrained 
from proposing a new genus “until the dentition of both the Bighorn and 
the Bridger forms is more fully known.” So far as the Bridger species A. 
emulus, type of the genus, is concerned, no more is known of it than the 
typical jaw found by Cope in 1872, unless indeed certain jaw fragments 
referred by Wortman to Euryacodon belong to this genus. 
Of “ Anaptomorphus” homunculus we have a number of additional 
specimens, and these together with a careful restudy of those hitherto de- 
scribed, show that this species is widely different from the true Anapto- 
morphus in its anterior dentition. It has, as pointed out by Osborn, three 
lower premolars, instead of two, but in place of three anterior teeth (inter- 
preted as two incisors and a canine) it has a single tooth much enlarged and 
set semi-vertically in the very deep symphyseal region of the jaw. This is 
clearly shown in three of our specimens; the others afford no evidence. In 
No. 41, in which the symphyseal region is obscured by a crust of hematite 
and has been differently interpreted by Osborn and Wortman, the two 
small alveoli in front of that for p? figured by Osborn are artefacts in the 
hematite crust; and a cautious removal of a part of this crust clears up the 
obscurity of the anterior teeth and shows that as in the other specimens 
described below (Nos. 15064 and 15072) there is a single large alveolus 
in front. : 
The skull, No. 4194, which is the type of the species, has been studied 
and described by several authors. As it is the only skull of this family 
known, and the oldest primate skull, it has naturally been widely noticed 
and discussed with regard to its morphologic characters and systematic 
relationships. In view of its importance it appeared advisable to supple- 
ment the photographs which will appear in Doctor Gregory’s morphologic 
description by an attempt at reconstruction of the skull and jaws, the crush- 
ing being corrected and the missing parts restored, partly from other indi- 
viduals (outline) and partly by analogy with Tarsius (dotted lines). 
The method adopted for correcting the distortion due to crushing has 
