FROM THE EED CRAG OF SUFFOLK. 215 



du morse que Pautre, et avec d'autant plus de raison que [D] uous possesions des 

 defenses de Trichecodon qui out uu tout autre caractere." 



In the first place, with regard to the passage marked A, it has escaped Prof. Van 

 Beneden's memory that he had not established the genus Trichecodon in 1865, but 

 suggested the name in a letter to me as one well fitted to indicate the fossil tusks of a 

 Walrus-like animal. Accordingly there was no thought of any genus or species 

 founded by Prof. Van Beneden when Trichecodon Suxleyi was described by me, for the 

 very sufficient reason that no such genus and no species of it had been described at that 

 time by the learned anatomist of Louvain. 



With reference to the question marked B, there is no room for doubt, since the genus 

 Trichecodon was instituted by me for the very tusks in question. 



In the sentence marked C, the Professor expresses an opinion which is entitled to all 

 the weight which his authority can give. He considers that the Suffolk tusks should be 

 connected with the bones to which he applies Du Bus's generic title Alachtherium, for 

 the reason that these bones are less like those of the living Walrus than are the second 

 series, to which he assigns the name Trichecodon. If his opinion were correct, the genus 

 Alacktherium (18G7) would have to give way to the earlier published name Trichecodon 

 (1865). But I cannot admit that there is the remotest evidence for the connexion of the 

 Suffolk tusks with the bones called Alachtherium rather than with any other Walrus- 

 bones, since no Walrus-tusk has been found in connexion with Walrus-bones in either 

 Suffolk or Belgium. 



Finally, Prof. Van Beneden states (in D) that he possesses tusks of his Trichecodon 

 (1871) which have quite a different character from those of my Trichecodon (1865). He 

 does not figure these tusks nor elsewhere describe them. I find no reference to them in 

 his description of Trichecodon Koninclni. No tusk was obtained in relation with the 

 bones which he describes under that name. The single fragment of a tusk, which is the 

 only tusk at present recorded (except in the passage just quoted) from the Belgian Crag, 

 presents no character which can separate it from the Suffolk tusks, or lead to its iden- 

 tification with any particular Walrus-bones. 



Further, supposing that there were such evidence forthcoming, it would be necessary 

 not to refer my Trichecodon Suxleyi to some new genus, but to create a new designation 

 for Prof. Van Beneden's later described form, and thus to avoid applying to it a desig- 

 nation already in use. 



My conclusion, therefore, from a careful consideration of Prof. Van Beneden's state- 

 ments in his large monograph (1877), and from that of his shorter memoir (1871), 

 and of Du Bus's account of Alachtherium (1867), is that there is no evidence for the 

 association of the tusks of Trichecus (Trichecodon) Suxleyi of Suffolk with any one 

 set of the bones of Walrus discovered at Antwerp rather than with any other ; and 

 inasmuch as the tusks which we now possess furnish as sound a basis for generic and 

 specific characterization as do detached and fragmentary bones of the general skeleton, 

 the title Trichecus Suxleyi should hold its place ; whilst, further, if the generic term 

 " Trichecodon " is to be used at all, it is applicable not to bones which give no specific 



29* 



