"In its general characters the skeleton of _Anchitherium_ is very similar to that of the horse, in fact Lartet and De Blainville called it _Palæotherium equinum_ or _Hippoides_; and De Cristol, in 1847, said that it differed from _Hipparion_ in little more than the characters of the teeth, and gave it the name of _Hipparitherium_. Each foot possesses three complete toes: while the lateral toes are much larger in proportion to the middle toe than in _Hipparion_, and doubtless rested on the ground in ordinary locomotion. The ulna is complete and quite distinct from the radius, although firmly united with the latter. The fibula seems also to have been complete; its lower end, though intimately united with that of the tibia, is clearly united with that of the latter bone. There are forty-four teeth; the incisors have no strong pit. The canines seem to have been well developed in both sexes. The first of the seven grinders, which, as I have said, is frequently absent, and, when it does exist, is small in the horse, is a good-sized and permanent tooth, while the grinder which follows it is but little larger than the hinder ones. The crowns of the grinders are short, and, although the fundamental pattern of the horse-tooth is discernible, the front and back ridges are less curved, the accessory pillars are wanting, and the valleys, much shallower, are not filled up with cement." Then, after describing his early efforts to trace the descent of the horse from European fossils, Huxley goes on to relate the new light thrown on the matter from the American discoveries of Professor Marsh: