64 ENTOMOPHAGA. 
concludes Mr. Broderip, “‘ rests only upon the portion of its 
lower jaw, figured in the plate accompanying the present 
memoir, (for the specimen figured by M. Prevost appears to 
have belonged to a different animal,) it would be presump- 
tuous in me to pronounce on its generic identity with 
Didelphis Cuv. But, until some more able anatomist shall 
correct the generic name, I may be permitted, for the sake 
of convenience and perspicuity, to name it Didelphis Buck- 
landi.” 
The statements and arguments of those Anatomists who ~ 
first applied their skill to the reconsideration of the Stones- 
field jaws, and who have not only rejected the reference of 
the present fossil to the genus Didelphys but to the Class 
Mammalia, have already been discussed, and I shall now 
cite those observations which, while they favour its claims 
to be admitted, not only into the Mammalian Class, but 
into the Marsupial Order, at the same time establish its 
generic distinction, and necessitate the imposition of a new 
generic name. 
The condyle of the jaw of the Phascolotherium here 
described, (fig. 20, a,) instead of being vertically split, as 
in the specimens of Amphitherium, is fortunately entire, 
and stands out in bold relief from the Oolitic matrix ; it 
presents exactly the same form and degree of convexity as 
im the genera Didelphys and Dasyurus. In its relative 
position to the series of molar teeth, with which it is on a 
level, it corresponds with Dasyurus more nearly than with 
Didelphys: m the Dasyurus ursinus, in fact, as well as in 
the allied Marsupial genus Thylacinus, the condyle has 
precisely the same relative position to the molar series ; so 
that this particular structure in the jaw of the Phascolo- 
therium affords no argument against its admission into the 
Marsupial series. 
