86 ARTIODACTYLE QUEENSLAND FOSSILS. 
be so clearly resolved. In the first place, the condition - 
of the tooth is so unsatisfactory that some boldness was ° 
required to base definite’ conclusions on it. The tooth’ 
has been partly built up, one of the cusps is entirely missing 
and another is unduly elevated, having been glued into 
position. This condition is largely shown in the original 
illustration. It was compared with the last lower molar 
of Peccary and “‘less nearly ’’ with the last upper molar 
of the native pig of Papua. Considered as a posterior 
molar it has no relationship with the teeth of any known 
marsupial, but these difficulties almost entirely disappear 
when it is regarded as a premolar. It certainly shows 
no sign of the strong transverse ridges which are so typical 
of the true molar series of our poephagous mammals, such 
as Diprotodon, Nototherium and the Macropodide. On the 
other hand, the premolar in these mammals departs from 
the bilophodont pattern and in some species is partially 
bunodont. Its variability has been the subject of con- 
siderable dispute, and it is interesting to remember that 
De Vis himself figured a premolar, attributed to Zygomaturus 
tvilobus,* which is bunodont as regards three of its five 
cusps. This tooth and the discrepant large premolar of 
Macleay’s type of Z. trilobus were commented on by Lydek- 
ker,f who considered the possibility of the latter bemg 
an abnormality or a deciduous third premolar of Dipro- 
todon appearing as a ‘‘reversionary instance.” When 
the comparative simplicity of the molar type of Procherus 
celer is considered in conjunction with the above references, 
it is by no means probable that it represents a non-mar- 
supial. And it may be definitely stated that this tooth, 
which was obtained at Sharrow, Darling Downs, has no 
affinity with the complex molars of the Papuan pig, Sus 
papuensis, Lesson, which is regarded by some authorities 
as merely a form of the Java species, S. vittatus, Muller 
and Schlegel.{ Jentink and Miller, however, restrict S. 
vittatus to the Sumatra animal.§ 
* Pr. Roy. Soc. Q’ld, V, 1888, part 3, pl. 2. 
7 Ann. Mag. Nat. His. (6) III, 1889, p. 149. 
{ M. Bauschke, Arch. Naturges., Berlin, 1911, Bd. 1, heft 1. 
§ Pr. U.S. Nat. Mus., XXX, p. 748, 1906. 
