ao, AMPHITHERIID2&. 
The first fossil was referred originally to the genus 
Didelphys, from the resemblance of the grinders to those of 
the opossums; but we have seen that Cuvier expressly 
stated that they exceeded in number the molar series in 
that or any other known carnivorous genus of Mammalia. 
M. Agassiz,* originally regarding this fossil as insuffici- 
ent to determine the nature of the animal to which it 
belonged, subsequently proposed,+ nevertheless, a generic 
name, Amphigonus, for that animal, expressive of its sup- 
posed ambiguous nature. 
M. de Blainyille,t likewise, though participating in the 
incertitude or doubt which M. Agassiz had cast upon the 
original determination of the Stonesfield fossil, felt as little 
hesitation in suggesting a name for the new genus which it 
seemed to indicate, whatever might subsequently prove to 
be its characters or affinities ; and it is remarkable that the 
Greek compound ‘“ Amphitherium,” should imply by its 
terminal element a relation to the class Mammalia, which 
the memoir, read to the French Academy by its inventor, 
was especially designed to disprove ; as the followmg sum- 
mary with which the author concludes his Memoir sufh- 
ciently manifests : 
‘“* Meanwhile, in the present state of our information, it 
appears to me that we are authorized in drawing the follow- 
ing conclusions — 
“Ist. The two solitary fragments found at Stonesfield, 
and referred to the genus Didelphys of the class Mammalia, 
have none of the characters of animals of this class, and 
certainly ought not to be arranged among them. 
* Neue Jahrbuch Mineral. and Geolog. von Leonhard und Bronn, 1835, 
iii, p. 185. 
+ German Translation of Dr. Buckland’s Bridgewater Treatise. 
 “* Doutes sur le prétendu Didelphe fossile de Stonesfield.”” Comptes rendus 
de l’Acad. de Sciences, Aug. 20, 1838. 
