INTRODUCTION. XI 



Subclass II. METATHEBIA. 

 Order X. HARSIJPIALIA. 



Suborder 1. Diprotodontia. 



2. Polyprotodontia. 

 Subclass III. PROTOTHERIA. 

 Order XI. MONOTREMATA. 



At the commencement of the work I had no intention of making 

 it a descriptive one, and proposed to confine myself to giving notes 

 on such specimens, species, or groups as appeared to require them. 

 As the work proceeded, however, it seemed advisable, in the case of 

 many groups, to notice some of the more important distinctive 

 characters available in the case of fossils ; and in the later parts, 

 where I have found it necessary to make some considerable emenda- 

 tions, both in specific and generic characters, the work has become 

 to a considerable extent descriptive, although it has not been thought 

 necessary to make it entirely so. 



In a work of this nature, it is unfortunately almost impossible to 

 avoid certain clerical and other slight errors ; but since I have had 

 occasion in the course of another work to verify the dental formula and 

 descriptive paragraphs, I believe all such errors have been detected. 



In a science like Paleontology it is inevitable that before a work 

 like the present can be completed, some of its earlier portions require 

 revision ; and I accordingly take this opportunity of directing atten- 

 tion to a few instances where either amendments of nomenclature 

 or of individual determinations are advisable, or where it is desirable 

 to state the grounds on which such determinations rest. Instances 

 are also mentioned where specimens have been figured since the 

 earlier parts were published. 



Among the Primates the type specimens of Semnopifhecus pcdce- 

 indicus (pt. i. p. 2) and Cynocephalus suWiimalayanus (p. 4) have been 

 figured in ser. 10, vol. iv. pi. i. of the ' Palasontologia Indica ;' while 

 a specific name has been assigned to the second CynocepTialus 

 noticed on the latter page, under which it is entered in the Supple- 

 ment. Among the Insectivora, two erroneous identifications made 

 on the authority of Dr. Fraas J require correction, while attention 

 should also be directed to some observations of Dr. Pilhol which 

 had escaped notice. In the first place, Erinaceus arvernensis of 

 Blainville (pt. i. pp. 18, 19), which is the type of Amphechinus of 

 Aymard, and is identified by Dr. Fraas with Parasorex socialis, is 



1 Fauna von Steinheim, p. 4. 



