410 E. S. GOODRICH. 



that " lors d^une inspection rapide que j^en pris k Oxford^ en 

 1818, [ils] me semblerent de quelque Didelphe ;" and adds in a 

 note that the jaw of Amphitherium " est celle d'un petit car- 

 nassier dont les machelieres resemblent beaucoup a celles des 

 Sarigues, mais il y a dix dents en serie, nombre que ne montre 

 aucun carnassier connu'^ (8). This note was written after 

 the examination of some careful drawings of Buckland's fossil 

 and of the type specimen of Amphilestes (see below) sent to 

 him by Prevost, who was then travelling in England. 



These announcements of the discovery of Mammalian re- 

 mains in stone belonging to the Mesozoic age created a great 

 sensation amongst the palaeontologists of the time, and it was 

 not for more than twenty years afterwards that the opinion of 

 the great French naturalist was generally accepted. Some 

 contended that the fossil did not really belong to the slate, 

 others that the strata in which they were found were not of 

 the Mesozoic period; while others, again, urged that the jaws 

 were those of a reptile, or even of a fish. All doubt having 

 been set at rest with regard to these points, it will not be 

 necessary to enter here in detail into the arguments used on 

 either side. 



Prevost, in 1825, on his return from England, where he had 

 carefully examined the specimen of Amphilestes now at York, 

 and " le fameux Didelphe " in Buckland's collection, published 

 the first detailed description and figure of this the type speci- 

 men of Amphitherium (25). He describes the teeth as having 

 tricuspid crowns, and two distinct roots in alveoli, concluding 

 that the fossil was Mammalian in confirmation of Cuvier. As 

 to its relationship, Prevost considered that it was probably 

 *'un maramifere carnassier insectivore qui pouvait ofi'rir quelque 

 analogic avec les Didelphes, mais qui appartiendrait a un genre 

 inconnu." 



Agassiz, in 1835, mentions the Stonesfield fossils in a short 

 note (1). He considered that the remains were not sufiicient 

 to allow of a certain determination of their affinities, but 

 drew attention to the resemblance of the teeth (especially 

 those of Phascolotherium described below) to those of certain 



