420 THE NITTJBAL HISTORY EETIEW. 



but assuming it to be that of a fish — and it has many analogies with 

 the jaws of some species of fish — or of some other animal accidentally 

 deposited in the very midst of the remains of that singular creature, 

 it appears to me that fragmentary as it is, its characters are suffi- 

 ciently defined for any one well- versed in the fossils of the Solenhofen 

 state to come forward and identify it. 



Up to the present time, however, I have not heard of any one 

 having been able to do so, and certainly the jaws and teeth of the 

 Lepidotous and Pholidophorous fishes from the same beds, such as 

 I have been able to examine, all difier from this in some more or less 

 important particulars. It appears to me also, that the teeth and jaw 

 on the Archseopteryx slab, are rather slighter in structure than those 

 of fishes of corresponding size, though this is a point on which I 

 would by no means insist. 



Looking at the usual dispersion of the fossils in the Solenhofen 

 slates, looking also at the general rule (to which, however, there are 

 some exceptions) that the fossils in it are found singly, so that all 

 the remains of a reptile or a fish upon a single slab, may usually be 

 assigned with some degree of confidence to a single individual, the 

 chances against a single extraneous jaw being mixed up with the 

 remains of the Archseopteryx, without any other bones of the 

 animal to which the jaw belonged, being also present, are great 

 indeed. But how enormously are the chances against such an 

 occurrence increased if the jaw thus accidentally present is that of a 

 species of fish or reptile hitherto unknown ? 



In order to obtain information from the best possible source, as 

 to whether the jaw and teeth were of a character well known to those 

 acquainted with the Solenhofen fossils, I prepared a careful drawing 

 of it and placed it in the hands of my lamented friend, the late Dr. 

 Falconer, who kindly wrote to the illustrious Hermann von Meyer 

 upon the subject. 



The following is a translated extract from his answer (dated from 

 Frankfort the 4th April, 1863) which Dr. Falconer kindly placed in 

 my hands. 



" In Palaeontology it is difficult to judge from drawings, but the 

 " two supplementary objects which Mr. John Evans has succeeded 

 " in discovering upon the Archseopteryx slab, are certainly of the 

 " greatest importance. Upon the part which may belong to the hinder- 

 " part* of the skull I hazard no opinion." " Much more important 



* This is probably an error for "fore part of the skull," but no drawhigs of the 

 head were sept to Herr von Meyer. 



