62 Dr. s Wyman on Fossil Bones from Memphis, Tem, 
conformation it a very nearly with that of a ‘epelatann 
or fiber, americanus), from the neigh- . 
borhood of Moose-head eo except that the impressions for the: 
attachments of the temporal and masseter muscles are more 
of a common beaver 
strongly marked in the fossil than in the recent specimen. ‘Fhe 
form of the condyle is somewhat different in the two; that of | 
the fossil specimen being longer in its antero-posterior diame- 
ter and resting offa much broader neck; the whole jaw when 
viewed from above is also more curved, ‘having the form of an ~ 
italic f —e strongly marke 
Th ond and third molars alone exist, and on close compari- 
son pallens: some peculiarities not found in the recent jaw. The 
anterior fold of enamel in each tooth which is directed across 
nearly the whole breadth of the crown from the inner to -the 
outer edge, is slightly involuted (fig. 4 a,) at the point where it 
approaches the outer surface, “hy that of the recent specimen 
forms a simple rounded terminatio } 
The oe dimensions of ‘the fossil and recent specimens 
are as follow 
Length ae tip of incisor to mae of eer: 3°9 inches. 
The same in the recent specime 35% 
Length of the alveolar process fo the molars, ». 
The same in the recent specime : 3 Bees 
No. 5. This is an yee niiiline only, of a left lower jaw, 
and contains the 2d, 3d and 4th molars, which gradually become 
smaller from the second me the fourth. The teeth of this speci- 
men present the same complication of the folds of enamel as in 
the preceding on 
No. 7. Isa fegusti of the left incisor tooth of a beaver, but 
both extremities are broken off. In its dimensions it corresponds 
with the same tooth in No. 5, but is of much darker color and 
appears to have come from a different locality. 
Remar he differences between the teeth of the fossil 
and recent eaciteai above referred to, would, in the minds o 
many naturalists, be sufficient grounds for the establishment of 
an additional species. I have made comparisons with only two 
recent specimens, and do not pacer myself justifiable in form- 
ing a new species, until by a careful examination of several jaws, 
the limit of natural variations be determined. It is not improba~’ 
ble that the above differences come within that natural limit, or 
may be a sexual peculiarity. It is certainly a matter of some 
interest and importance to determine if the fossil and recent spe- 
cies are identical. 
No. 8. Castoroides Ohioensis, Foster.—The most interesting 
specimen from the Memphis collection is a large fragment of the 
right half of the lower jaw of this recently discovered species, 4 
species not only interesting for some of its osteological peculiari- 
coy 
tes 
te 
