32 AMPHITHERIID^:. 



The first fossil was referred originally to the genus 

 Didelpliys, from the resemblance of the grinders to those of 

 the opossums ; but we have seen that Cuvier expressly 

 stated that they exceeded in number the molar series in 

 that or any other known carnivorous genus of Mammalia. 



M. Agassiz,* originally regarding this fossil as insuffici- 

 ent to determine the nature of the animal to which it 

 belonged, subsequently proposed,^ nevertheless, a generic 

 name, Amphigonus, for that animal, expressive of its sup- 

 posed ambiguous nature. 



M. de Blainville,j likewise, though participating in the 

 incertitude or doubt which M. Agassiz had cast upon the 

 original determination of the Stonesfield fossil, felt as little 

 hesitation in suggesting a name for the new genus which it 

 seemed to indicate, whatever might subsequently prove to 

 be its characters or affinities ; and it is remarkable that the 

 Greek compound " AmpMtherium" should imply by its 

 terminal element a relation to the class Mammalia, which 

 the memoir, read to the French Academy by its inventor, 

 was especially designed to disprove ; as the following sum- 

 mary with which the author concludes his Memoir suffi- 

 ciently manifests : 



" Meanwhile, in the present state of our information, it 

 appears to me that we are authorized in drawing the follow- 

 ing conclusions 



" 1st. The two solitary fragments found at Stonesfield, 

 and referred to the genus Didelpliys of the class Mammalia, 

 have none of the characters of animals of this class, and 

 certainly ought not to be arranged among them. 



* Neue Jahrbuch Mineral, and Geolog. von Leonhard und Bronn, 1835, 

 iii. p. 185. 



f- German Translation of Dr. Buckland's Bridgewater Treatise. 



J " Doutes sur le pretendu Didelphe fossile de Stonesfield." Comptes rendus 

 de 1'Acad. de Sciences, Aug. 20, 1838. 



