Doubts respecting the Fossil Jaws of Stonesfield. 639 



Art. TI. — Doubts respecting the Class, Family, and Genus to which 

 the Fossil Bones found at Stonesfield, and designated by the names 

 of Didelphis Prevostii and Did. Bucklandii, should be referred. — 

 By M. de Blainville.* 



In a paper on the Megalosaurus, or great fossil lizard of 

 Stonesfield, published in 1823 in the ' Transactions of the 

 Geological Society of London,' vol. i. p. 399, the question 

 was first mooted, as to whether some fossil bones, found in 

 one of the more ancient secondary strata, belonged to a mam- 

 mal of the genus Didelphis : — and Professor Buckland first 

 announced the fact as established, from an examination of 

 two portions of lower jaws made by the late M. G. Cuvier. 



This assertion (the importance of which Dr. Buckland was 

 so well qualified to appreciate) of the existence of the remains 

 of a terrestrial mammal in a formation much lower than the 

 chalk, an animal too belonging to a genus of which the living 

 analogues are only found in the New World and Australasia, 

 — although based upon such imposing authority, was yet re- 

 ceived with considerable caution, as has been remarked by 

 the author of an analytical article upon the ' Transactions of 

 the Geological Society of London,' in the 34th volume of the 

 'Quarterly Review,' p. 539. It was therefore of consequence 

 that the fact thus announced should be attentively examined, 

 not only in its geological relations, but also in a zoological 

 point of view ; nor indeed was it long before this investiga- 

 tion was entered upon. 



*" Doutes sur le pretendu Didelphe fossil de Stonefield, ou a quelle classe, 

 a quelle famille, a quel genre, doit-on rapporter ranimal auquel ont apper- 

 tenus les ossements fossiles, a Stonefield, designes sous les noms de Didel- 

 phis Prevostii, et Did. Bucklandii, par les paleontologistes." — ! Compte 

 Rendu,' August 20th, 1838, p. 402. 



The present article will put our readers in possession of the " doubts " 

 entertained by M. de Blainville, as to the correctness of the opinion first 

 given by Baron Cuvier, and subsequently confirmed by several English 

 zoologists, respecting the mammiferous and marsupial character of the 

 Stonesfield jaws Care has been taken to render the translation as faithful 

 as the occasional occurrence of somewhat obscure passages would allow, and 

 which in the original are of little importance, as the introduction of figures 

 renders the osteological details more easily understood. M. de Blainville 

 has been opposed, before the French Academy, by one of his fellow acade- 

 micians, M. Valenciennes, who with the exception of his considering the 

 jaw referable to an extinct genus of Marsupiala and not to Didelphis, 

 strongly supports the opinion held by Cuvier. 



Very recently some additional observations entitled " Nouveaux doutes 

 sur le pretendue didelph de Stonefield" have appeared by M. de Blainville, 

 and the subject is one of such general interest and great geological impor- 

 tance, that we shall probably transfer these " new doubts," and the previous 

 paper of M. Valenciennes to our own pages. — Ed. 



