from the Northumberland Goal-Jield. 187 



not amount to much. In the Scotch specimen there are thir- 

 teen teeth described in the left praimaxiUa and maxilhi, while 

 nineteen are enumerated as attached to the same bones of the 

 right side. In our specimen there are thirteen maxillary teeth 

 on the right side and three pricmaxillary teetli on the left, one 

 or two ap])arently being wanting. So it would seem that the 

 Newsham specimen, when perfect, had, in all probability, six- 

 teen or seventeen teeth in the upper jaw on each side ; but as 

 the number in the two sides does not apparently agree in the 

 Scotch specimen, our specimen may have had two or three 

 teeth more or less on either side, thus altering the numlier to 

 thirteen or nineteen, as in the specimen described by Prof. 

 Huxley. 



The palatal teeth, however, are wanting in the Newsham 

 specimen. On the left side, the bone to which they are at- 

 tached is broken away ; but on the right side there is a ridge 

 behind the vomerine tusk, which, perhaps, may be the alveolar 

 plate ; if so, the teeth have been removed ; there are, however, 

 some fragments in the vicinity, which possibly belong to the 

 palatal teeth of this side. 



The teeth on the wdiolc are somewhat less than those of the 

 Scotch specimen, and this disagreement cannot be accounted 

 for by the difference in size of the skulls. The Scotch skull 

 is 5*3 inches in width opposite the vomerine tusks. Our spe- 

 cimen measures across the same region 5'5 inches ; so the 

 latter would appear to be the larger of the two. But this is 

 probably not the case, for our fragment seems to be a little 

 widened by pressure. The skull, hoAvever, of our specimen, 

 when perfect, could not be much, if at all, smaller than that 

 described from Scotland, which is stated to be 15 inches long, 

 and 12 inches wide at the Avidest part. That they were of 

 nearly equal size is apparently confirmed by the dimensions of 

 the vomerine tusks. 



Those of the Newsham specimen seem to be quite as large 

 as those of the Scotch specimen ; in both they are about equal 

 in diameter at the base. It is true that Prof. Huxley esti- 

 mates their length in the Scotch specimen to be 3 inches, 

 while, judging from the fragments, we have calculated that 

 the left tusk in our specimen could not be less than 2 inches 

 long ; but how much longer it nuiy have been wc cannot de- 

 termine. It is certain that the two fragments into which it is 

 broken, when taken together, measure upwards of 2 inches in 

 length ; and it is impossible to say how much the bayal por- 

 tion overlies the upper ; moreover, the latter is bent, and the 

 apical extremity is wanting. We think, then, that the dis- 

 parity in the number and size of the teeth and tusks is not 



