AMPHITHERIUM. 53] 
“2nd. Neither can they be referred to an insectivorous 
Monodelph allied to the Tupaia or Centetes. 
“ 3rd. If we deem ourselves justified in regarding them 
as of the class Mammalia, the molar portion of their dental 
system brings them nearer to the family of the Seals than 
to any other. 
“4th. But it is infinitely more probable, from analogy 
with what we know of the Basitlosaurus found in America, 
in a formation likewise secondary, that they ought to be 
referred to a genus of the sub-order of Saurians. 
“5th. That in any case they must be distinguished by a 
different generic name, for which purpose we propose that 
of Amphitherium, as indicating their ambiguous nature. 
“ Lastly ; the existence of the remains of Mammalia 
anterior to the formation of tertiary strata is not at all 
proved by the Stonesfield fossils on which we have now 
treated, although we are far from asserting that Mammalia 
were not in existence during the secondary period.” 
Dr. Buckland, shortly after the publication of M. de 
Blainville’s doubts, visited Paris, taking with him the 
original specimen seen by Cuvier, and a second specimen, 
also from Stonesfield, more perfect as regards the jaw-bone, 
but less perfect in reference to the teeth: and he submitted 
both these specimens, in the absence of M. de Blainville, to 
M. M. Valenciennes and Laurillard. The results of their 
comparisons were communicated by M. Valenciennes to the 
Academy of Sciences,* in September 1838. The second 
specimen was referred to the species (Didelphys Bucklandi 
Brod.) which had been described and figured by my friend 
Mr. Broderip in the Zoological Journal ;+ but in this latter 
determination I cannot agree with M. Valenciennes, who has, 
* Comptes rendus de l’Acad. des Sciences, Sept., 1838, p. 572. 
+ Vol. iii. p. 408, pl. xi. 
