116 Viiiversitij of California Publications in Zoology [Vol. 11 



\-i(lual had 3, 5 or more than 16 teeth, while, out of 189 tonth- 

 •ows counted, about 1 per cent had 4, 2 per cent 6, 4 per cent 7, 



^ p: ,^^« ««„4- o e r . „ — 4. n in n 4- ia -in c: ^„ . -- 



5.5 



- - ^--- , .- ^^r cent 9, 19.5 per cent 10, 19.5 per cent 11, 



17.5 per cent 12, 11 per cent 13. 9 per cent 14, 4 per cent 15, 

 ent 16. 



per cent 8, 6.5 per cent 9, 19. 

 ^..j per cent 12, 11 pei 

 and less than 1 per cent 



30- 



20 



10- 



4 5 



6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 



FiK. 2 



Here again the specific validity of this histogram depends 

 upon to what extent the number of teeth is correlated with 

 length of animal. Concerning this table 9 shows an even greater 

 correlation than that displayed by the anterior teeth. This 

 visual impression is corroborated by the coefScients, that relating 

 to the anterior teeth being 0.609 ± 0.0300 and that relating to 

 the posterior teeth 0.751 ± 0.021. Here it is perfectly evident 

 that the smaller animals have the fewest and the larger animals 



