Dr. C. I. Fonyth Major — Some Rodents from Oeningen. 367 



his ' Lagomys Oeningensis ' to the genus Tttanomys,^ assuming, 

 erroneously again, this latter genus alone to be characterized by four 

 lower cheek-teeth only, the posterior of which is bipartite. 



Meanwhile a real step forward had been made by Hensel, in 

 describing his ' Lagomys verus,' - which was founded on a fossil 

 communicated to him by Quenstedt ; its provenance is not " aus 

 den Bohnerzen der schwiibischen Alp," but from the Molasse of 

 Althausen, WiJrttemberg.^ The species is based on the fragment of 

 a mandibular ramus, and exhibits, in opposition to ' Myolagiis ' 

 {=z Prolagus), described in the same article, five lower cheek-teeth, 

 the posterior one being a small cylindriform tooth, as in the recent 

 Lagomys ; the anterior one is, also as in the latter, composed of 

 only one cylinder, but of a more complicated pattern than in 

 Lngomys. 



Hensel's Lagomys verus having the size of H. v. Meyer's L. Oening- 

 ensis, and both localities being of the same geological age, the suspicion 

 naturally arises that the two names might be synonyms. Hensel 

 does not discuss this side of the question, and he could not do so ; 

 for, as he rightly says, the specimens of L. Oeningensis of the " Fauna 

 der Vorwelt " ai'e insufficiently characteiMzed. 



In his " Nager des europaischen Tertiiirs," * Schlosser enumerates 

 'Lagomys (Lagopsis) Oeningensis,'H.\.Mey.,' as (Wstmctfvoxa 'Lagomys 

 (Lagopsis) verus, Hens.,' and the same course is followed by Zittel.-' 

 However, the former writer, when describing in the same memoir" 

 specimens from other localities, suggests that after all ' Lagomys 

 Oeningensis' from Oeningen, may be identical with L. verus, Hens. 

 Three more or less complete mandibular rami from Deggenhausen, 

 Elgg, and Hohenhoven respectively, had been mentioned by H. v. 

 Meyer, and drawings of their teeth, found amongst his MSS., have 

 been reproduced by Schlosser.'' They show an agreement in their 

 p. 2 with Hensel's Lagomys verus, and Schlosser therefore concludes" 

 that they are the same species. He also proposes ^ to raise Hensel's 

 Lagomys verus to generic rank — Lagopsis — chiefly on account of 

 the difference from the recent Lagomys in the lower anterior pre- 

 molar (p. 2). 



Like the Oeningen ' Lagomys Oeningensis,' no last molar (m. 3) 

 is to be seen in the specimens from the three localities mentioned. 

 Schlosser does not attach any great weight to the absence of this 

 small tooth in the three specimens figured from H. v. Meyer's 

 MSS. Neither do I ; but for diiferent reasons from those given 

 by the former writer in the following passage, and with which 



^ Palaeontographica, xvii, p. 228 (1870). 

 2 Loc. cit., p. 688. 



» Quenstedt: Handbuch d. Petrefaktenkuude, 2*= Aufl., p. 45, fi?. 6*^ (1867); 

 id. H., 3te Aufl., p. 55, fig. 7 (1885). 

 ■» Palaeontographica, xxxi, p. 31 (1884). 

 » Handbuch d. Palaeontologie, iv, p. 553 (1891-93). 

 6 Loc. cit., p. 32. 



' Loc. cit., p. 31, pi. viii, figs. 40, 46, 49. 

 8 Loc. cit., pp. 31, 32. 

 « Loc. cit., pp. 28-31. 



