44.9 ANOPLOTHERIID&. 
In the description which Mr. Pratt has given of this 
unique fossil, figured in cut 181, he observes, “‘ This Jaw ap- 
pears to be closely allied to the genus Moschus; but the loss 
of the anterior portion renders it difficult to class the fossil 
correctly, and the greater width of the coronoid process 
distinguishes it from any described species of that order. 
This circumstance induced Cuvier (to whom a cast of the 
specimen had been sent) to suppose it to belong to the 
genus Anoplotherium, and he had named it Anoplotherium 
dichobunes; but as it was not possible to determine the 
structure of the fossil from an examination of the cast, I 
was induced to compare the single tooth above mentioned, 
with the specimens of the Paris Pachydermata preserved 
in the Museum of Natural History, and also with the jaws 
and teeth of all the small Ruminants in the same collection. 
This was done with the assistance of M. de Blainville, who, 
after the must careful examination, acknowledged that it 
was impossible to decide positively without having a more 
perfect jaw; and he was induced to leave the specimen 
amongst the Pachydermata, rather because Cuvier had so 
placed it, than on account of any decisive character. The 
texture of the tooth approaches, in my opinion, nearer to 
the Ruminants, while the general form of the jaw gives 
it the character belonging to the Anoplotherium. It is 
therefore very desirable to procure more perfect specimens, 
that this interesting question should be determined, as it 
is a remarkable circumstance that the teeth of two genera 
so very different should be so closely allied in form.”* 
After a close comparison of the original specimen, now 
in the Museum of the Geological Society, with the corre- 
sponding part of the Moschus moschiferus, with which it 
agrees in size, I find that the grinders are relatively 
* © Geological Transactions,’ Second Series, vol. iii. p. 453. 
