442 ANOPLOTHERIID.E. 



In the description which Mr. Pratt lias given of this 

 unique fossil, figured in cut 181, he observes, " This jaw ap- 

 pears to be closely allied to the genus Moschus; but the loss 

 of the anterior portion renders it difficult to class the fossil 

 correctly, and the greater width of the coronoid process 

 distinguishes it from any described species of that order. 

 This circumstance induced Cuvier (to whom a cast of the 

 specimen had been sent) to suppose it to belong to the 

 genus Anoplotherium, and he had named it Anoplotherium 

 dichobunes ; but as it was not possible to determine the 

 structure of the fossil from an examination of the cast, I 

 was induced to compare the single tooth above mentioned, 

 with the specimens of the Paris Pachydermata preserved 

 in the Museum of Natural History, and also with the jaws 

 and teeth of all the small Ruminants in the same collection. 

 This was done with the assistance of M. de Blainville, who, 

 after the most careful examination, acknowledged that it 

 was impossible to decide positively without having a more 

 perfect jaw ; and he was induced to leave the specimen 

 amongst the Pachydermata, rather because Cuvier had so 

 placed it, than on account of any decisive character. The 

 texture of the tooth approaches, in my opinion, nearer to 

 the Ruminants, while the general form of the jaw gives 

 it the character belonging to the Anoplotherium. It is 

 therefore very desirable to procure more perfect specimens, 

 that this interesting question should be determined, as it 

 is a remarkable circumstance that the teeth of two genera 

 so very different should be so closely allied in form.""* 



After a close comparison of the original specimen, now 

 in the Museum of the Geological Society, with the corre- 

 sponding part of the Moschus moscMferus, with which it 

 agrees in size, I find that the grinders are relatively 



* ' Geological Transactions,' Second Series, vol. iii. p. 453. 



