FOSSIL REMAINS. 61 



" It was i)artially imbedded iu a layer of blue clay a foot in thick- 

 ness, overlaid by a layer of lighter clay two feet two inches thick, 

 containing" casts and shells of 3Iya arenaria, Maconia suhulosa, 

 Mytylus edulis, Cardium (Serripes) grcenlandicum, Astnrte tnm- 

 cata, Saxicava distorta. Nucula antiqna, Leda tenuis ulcata, L. 

 truncata, Natica clausa ajidjmsilla, and Balamis. The skeleton 

 is in the Museum of the Portland Society of ISTatural History."* 



In Europe, Walrus remains were reported by Cuvier t as found 

 at Angers, France, but Geryais \ found later that the only por- 

 tion of those remains accessible to him belonged not to the 

 Walrus, but to the Salitherium. 



In 1858, however, a part of a cranium was described by Gra- 

 tiolet, from the dilu^dal deposits of Montrouge, near Paris. He, 

 however, considered it as distinct from the existing species, even 

 generically, and gave it the name Odohcnotlierium lartetianum.^ 

 In 1874, a nearly entire skull was described by Defrance, from 

 similar deposits near the vUlage of Sainte-Menehould, Marne, 

 which he not only considered as identical with the living species, 

 but also referred the fragment previously described by Gratiolet 

 to the same species. Eespecting these specimens he says : 



"En comparant entre eUes les tetes du Tricheclms rosmarus 

 de nos mers, de VOdobenotherium Lartetianum et du THchechus 

 de Sainte-Menehould, on leur trouve une ressemblance aussi com- 

 plete que possible, sauf en ce qui concerne la forme et le vo- 

 lume de Tajiophyse mastoide, point qui i^resente des differences 

 assez sensible. On salt que dans le T. rosmarus cette apophyse 

 est tr^s-grande, presque verticale, et saillante la partie infe- 

 rieure du crane; celle de VOdohenotJierium, egalement tres- 

 volumineuse, se prolonge presque horizontalement en arriere, 

 sans depasser le crane inferieurement ; ceUe du Triclieclms de 

 Sainte-Menehould i)r6sente un volume plus considerable encore 

 que dans les deux autres, sans se i)rolonger en arriere comme 

 dans VOdohenotherium, mais inferieiu^ement comme dans le 

 THchechus actuel. Ces nuances legeres indiquent 6videmment 

 une (Stroite parente entre ces trois individus ; aussi est-il diffi- 

 cile de comprendre que Gratiolet ait voulu ^tabKr un nouveau 

 genre sur des particularites pen accentuee que celles que lui 

 l)resentait la portion de crane dont il etait possesseur, et qui ne 



* American Naturalist, vol. xii, \). 63o, Sept., 1878; see also Portland (^lAva.Q) 

 Argus, of July , 1878. 

 tOssem. Foss. 



t Zool. et Pal(?out. Fraugaises, 1859, j). 88. 

 Bull. Soc. G(5ol. de France, 2^ s^r., xv, 1858, p. 624. 



