On the Dinotherium Giganteum. 21S 



by Baron Cuvier, and which M. de Blamville has alluded to in his commu- 

 nication, I cannot see in the Dinotherium, as does this latter naturalist, an 

 animal which very nearly approximates to the Dxigongs. On the other hand, 

 I think it must be placed among the Pachyderma properly so called, and in a 

 genus very closely allied to the Hippopotamus. I shall state, in a few words, 

 the reasons which induce me to think that the Dinotherium should not be ar- 

 ranged under the order Cetacea, but rather among the Pachyderma. 1st, The 

 texture of the bones of the Cetacea differs completely from that of the Dino- 

 therium ; it is more fibrous, whilst in the bones of this animal it is hr.r 'or, as 

 ill the pachyderma generally. 2d, The occipital bones of the cetac r. pre- 

 sent something like fontanells, which are especial';.' remarkable in the neigh- 

 bourhood of the basilar bone ; whilst nothing of this sort is seen in the head 

 of the Dinotherium. The pars petrosa of this last, which exhibits the same 

 structure as in the pachyderma, is placed at the extremity, of a long auditory 

 canal, as in the hippopotamus, and consequently is not found situated on the 

 level of the external face of the occipitals, as occurs in the dugongs, in which 

 it forms a portion which is almost wholly isolated. 3d, As to the form, struc- 

 ture, number, and mode of replacement of the teeth, the Dinotherium is evi- 

 dently one of the Pachyderma ; and in this respect it has not the slightest 

 analogy with the Manatee, and still less with the Dugongs. 4th, If the 

 angle which the frontal bones forms with the back part of the cranium be ex- 

 cepted, there will be found in this last part, as JM. liaurillard has remarked, 

 much more resemblance with what we observe in the rhinoceros than with 

 what is found in any other animal. But this obtuse angle, which I also find 

 in the Cete properly so called, as I have formerly remarked, does not at all 

 exist in the Dugong, in which this angle is almost a right one, as in the other 

 JIammalia. 5th, The exterior form of the basilar bone, and of the bones 

 which surround it, as well as that of the suborbital foramina, are entirely 

 different from what is observed in the dugong, and exactly resembles that 

 which is seen in the pachyderma. The same is also true of the prolongation 

 in form of an epiphysis, which is found behind the glenc'd cavity, or rather 

 the facet which forms the articulation of the lower jj^w ; there is no analogy 

 to this except in the pachyderma. Glh, The zygomatic arch, 9o far as we can 

 judge of it by the portions of it which have been preserved, resemble those 

 of the rhinoceros ; in the dugong it is much more arched — As to the cervical 

 vertebra of the animal approximating the dugong, which is mentioned in the 

 Catalogue of Fossiles of M. de Klijisteiii, — a vertebra which M. de Blain- 

 ville alludes to as having possibly belonged to the Dinotherium, it belongs 

 to an animal of the same size as the manatus, and consequently cannot have 

 formed a part of the body of the Dinotherium ; it belongs to a new genus, 

 nearer to the manatus than the dugong, to which I have given the name of 

 Pugmeodon ; the animal is undoubtedly identical with that which has been 

 described by M. Duvernoy, and the same also as the fossil manatus described 

 by Baron Cuvier. The formation in which the bones of this animal is for.nd 

 is marine, and all the vertebrrc, are filled with the teeth of the shark." 



In Plate II. is a representation of the restored dinotherium 

 as given by Kaup. 



M. Strauss, a German naturalist, is not disposed to the opi- 



