62 QUARTER LVJOURNAL, 



scribed by Dr. Harlan and Prof. Owen. If the figures given b} 

 these gentlemen are correct, then there is no doubt of ours being 

 quite a different animal and ought to receive a distinct designation 

 But the vertebra and ribs figure, by Prof. Owen, are accurate repre 

 sentations of ours, and taking all circumstances into consideratior 

 the writer strongly suspects it is the same animal ; and, admitting 

 that the teeth have been described and figured so imperfectly befori 

 and that they cannot be identified as parts of the animal to whicl 

 they belonged, still we should not, in this case, wish to chang 

 the name. To Prof. Owen belongs the 'merit of pointing out th 

 position which this animal holds in the animal kingdom, and th 

 name Zeuglodon is a good one, though the specific name cetoidet 

 is questionable. This we infer from the great length of the neck 

 Of the bones beside the vertebrge, we have a femur, a huraerusi 

 and the ulna and radius, with a portion of scapula ; a portion of a 

 enormous pelvis, several ribs, two or three bones corresponding t 

 the wrist, and both extremities of the lower jaw and the extremit 

 of the upper jaw and many other fragments of some importancr 

 The vertebrae extend in a line about 65 feet. We shall give ii 

 the next number drawings and descriptions of such as are the mo 

 important. 



Before we close, it is proper to notice Dr. Gibbes' new fosfi 

 teeth described in the proceedings of the Academy of Naturi 

 Science of Philadelphia. The general form of these is much t]\ 

 same as those figures w^e have given. Two important differencf 

 according to the description, exist. Dr. Gibbes' teeth are all hcj; 

 low, which denotes an approach to the saurian type; the angle 

 bifurcation of the fangs is quite different ; the fangs of his teed 

 stand out at quite an angle ; while in mine the fangs are neairi 

 parallel. If from any accident then, the teeth described by E 

 G. lost their interior, or were solid, this evidently would make the 

 two different species. If those teeth were solid, there is such a rj| 

 semblance in the teeth that the animals to which they belongn 

 were of the same genus, but of different species. Then again, E 

 Kock, who has been to Alabama for the express purpose of pr 

 curing these bones, believes that his are entirely different fro 

 those in our possession, and this may be so. The formation 

 which these fossil bones belong, is the superior portion of the cr' 

 taceous group. All the fossils, with one or two exceptions, beloi; 



