36 



and the specimens of (eetli IVoiu Henry's Fork, just described, are as 

 follows : 



Si)ace occupied by the entire molar series 

 Space occupied by the true molar series . 

 Space occupied by the premolar series . . 



Liucs. 



G9 

 41 



28 



Lines. 



71 

 ■11 

 32 



Diameter of lirst premolar . 

 Diameter of secoud premolar 

 Diameter of third premolar 

 Diameter of fourth premolar 



Diameter of first molar 



Diameter of secoud molar . . 

 Diameter of last molar 



Autero- 

 jiosterior. 



Lines. 



5 



G 



7 

 10 

 12 

 1(3 

 17 



Transverse. 



Lines. 



3 



7 



8 

 lOi 

 13 

 17 



m 



Antero- 

 posterior. 



Lines. 



7 



8 



8 



8 

 12 

 15 

 17 



Transverse. 



Lines. 



4 



7 



9 

 10 

 12i 

 W 

 IGJ 



Lines. 



Lines. 



Length of faug of upper canines 



Autero-posterior diameter of canines 

 Transverse diameter of canines 



28 

 12§ 



m 



18 



7 



The question arises whether the differences which have been indicated in 

 the [)remolars and canines of the two different series of teeth above described 

 indicate more than one species. The differences are clearly in degree of 

 development and size, and these may probably be of a sexual character. The 

 individual with the more powerful canines I suppose to have been a male, in 

 which, with a greater proportionate degree of development of these oi'gans 

 than in the female, there appears to have been a reduction in the degree of 

 development of the anterior premolars. 



Another sjieciinen submitted to my examination by Dr. Carter, and repre- 

 sented in Figs. 6, 7, Plate XXIV, belonged to an older animal than the 

 former, as indicated by the more worn condition of the teeth. The latter 

 consist of the anterior three premolars and a portion of the fang of the canine, 

 and they have the same form and proportions as the corresponding teeth 

 above described. The first premolar is close to the others, or is iiot sepa- 



