460 Bulletin American Museum of Natural History. [Vol. XXXIV, 
tooth socket warrants any such positive statement. It may be a portion 
of an alveolus, but it is not certainly so. At all events no portion of an 
alveolar border is preserved. Nor is Wortman’s statement that in the 
maxilla, No. 41, there is evidence of a tooth with more than a single root 
in advance of the two premolars confirmed by careful study of the specimen. 
If it were so this specimen would disagree with the typical skull, in which the - 
tooth in advance of the premolars is single-rooted, and separated from them 
by a short diastema; but this second maxilla agrees in both particulars with 
the type so far as I am able to judge. 
That this single-rooted tooth is a premolar as Wortman believes, appears 
to me improbable on account of the diastema between it and p*. A diastema 
(0.7/9 F Type 
rb Z 
NY 
\\\' 
Si 
\ 
if! 
} 
3 W 7) 
SEZ Q) an 
r Sos" 
SCS 
as 
iE 
BS 
Fi We 
Tetonius homunculus (Cope), skull and lower jaw, left side view, distortion of 
skull corrected. Type skull of Anaptomorphus homunculus, Gray Bull beds, Bighorn basin, 
Wyoming. Lower jaw from No. 41, same horizon and locality. 
Fig. 30. 
between p* and p* in so short and crowded a dentition would be very un- 
hkely; on the other hand if p’ is suppressed the postcanine diastema is quite 
natural. The form of the tooth in question is not decisive, but is more 
suggestive of a canine, and if the remnants of the maxillo-premaxillary 
suture are correctly identified on the broken anterior face of the skull, the 
position of the tooth in question is so close behind it that it must have been 
a canine unless this tooth was suppressed, which is less probable than the 
suppression of p’. 
I conclude that Cope’s and Osborn’s interpretation of this tooth as’ the 
canine is correct. 
