C TV. Andrews — Fossil 3Iammals from Eg i/jjt. 483 



instead of two of about the same height. (4) The presence of a thick, 

 unbrolven ridge of enamel (cingnlum) which surrounds the base 

 of the cheek-teeth, particularly the upper molars ; this ridge is 

 scarcely indicated in Anthracotherium. (5) The pi'esence of a peculiar 

 sculpturing of the surface of the enamel into fine wavy ridges. 



The following characters of the mandible and lower teeth are 

 mentioned by Deperet as distinguishing Brachyodns from Ancodns : 

 (1) The jaw of Bracliyodus is less elongate anteriorly, there is no 

 diastema between pm. 1 and pm. 2, and the crowns of the teeth 

 are more brachyodont ; (2) the lower cheek-teeth of Ancodus have 

 no cingulum, and the enamel is not sculptured. On the other hand, 

 according to this writer, there is great similarity between Bracliyodus 

 and Ancodus, both in the form of the mandibular ramus and in the 

 structure of the lower molars. This diagnosis is largely founded 

 on the specimen from Eggenburg, excellent photographic figures 

 of which are given in the above-mentioned paper. 



Certain points iu the comparisons of these types just quoted seem 

 open to objection. For instance, in specimens of the teeth, both 

 of Anthracotherium and Ancodus, in the British Museum (Natural 

 History), the enamel is sculptured, and some teeth of Ancodus 

 approach those of Brachyodns very nearly in this respect. Again, 

 judging from Deperet's figure, the cingulum is very slightly 

 developed in the lower molars, particularly on the inner side ; 

 this is also the case in our specimen, In the description of the 

 lower molars the following sentence — " der riickwartig aussere 

 Hugel heftet sich mit seinera vorderem Eande an den entsprecheuden 

 inneren Hiigel wie bei Ancodus, und nicht mit seinem riickwartigen 

 Eande ; " — is obscure, but it seems to imply that the anterior 

 horn of the postero-external crescent (hypoconid) unites with the 

 postero-internal tubercle (entoconid), as in Ancodus, and does not 

 extend across the valley to the antero-internal cusp (metaconid) ; 

 in the photograph of the Eggenburg specimen it can be seen that 

 this is not so, the arrangement being like that shown on the 

 accompanying Plate XXIII, Fig. 2. Some very worn molars of 

 Ancodus show traces of a similar arrangement, which is the normal 

 one in the molars of Anthracotherium. 



The specimen now figured agrees in all important characters with 

 that from Eggenburg, and must be referred to the same genus. It, 

 however, belonged to a rather smaller animal, in which the crowns 

 of the molars are longer in proportion to their width than in 

 B. onoideus, and the dental foramen is smaller and situated beneath 

 the anterior edge of pm. 4, instead of beneath pm. 1, differences 

 which justify its specific separation suggested by Dr. Blanckenhorn. 

 The length of the fragment is 21 cm. 



In m. 3 the cingulum is fairly prominent on the antero-external 

 angle of the tooth and on the outer side of the talon ; on the inner 

 side it is wanting entirely, except for a short distance on the inner 

 side of the talon. The talon is large, and consists of a single 

 crescentic cusp, similar to the outer cusps of the anterior portion 

 of the tooth, but with the opening of the V looking forward and 



