36 AMPHITHERIID &. 
mains, and gave to its promulgator occasion to reflect on 
those persons “ who are little versed in the study of organic 
structures, and who place too implicit a reliance on, per- 
haps, rather a presumptuous assertion, that by the aid of 
a single bone, or of a simple articular surface of a bone, the 
skeleton of an animal can be reconstructed, and consequent- 
ly its class, order, family, genus, and even species deter- 
mined. Such persons,” M. de Blainville states, ‘“‘ may, 
very probably, think it strange that four or five half-jaws, 
more or less furnished with teeth, should be insufficient to 
indicate promptly and with certainty to what class the 
animal to which they belonged should be referred.” 
Such thoughts were, in fact, so strongly entertained by 
the discoverer of the M/egalosaurus, than whom no one could 
have better grounds for reliance on the Cuvierian axiom, 
that he brought the two specimens to London, and favoured 
me by leaving them in my hands for a close re-examination 
and comparison. With a view to obtain as many mcon- 
testable facts as possible, on which to base the arguments 
that might establish the desired demonstration of the 
nature and affinities of the supposed enigmatical fossils, I 
soon after visited York, and examined the specimen in the 
Museum of the Philosophical Society of that City, and 
finally devoted a close scrutiny to the most perfect of 
the Stonesfield jaws, which had been presented to the 
British Museum by Mr. Broderip. The results of these 
observations, with figures of the four specimens most care- 
fully executed by the late Mr. Charles Curtis, were pub- 
lished in the Transactions of the Geological Society.* 
The accuracy of the descriptions can be tested by refer- 
ence to the original specimens; the soundness of the con- 
clusions must be left to the judgment of the unbiassed 
* 2nd Series, vol. vi. pp. 47—65, pl. 5, 6. 
