Dr. C. I. Forsyfh Major— On Foml Dormice. 497 



premolar bad one root, and was rectanj^ular, longer tlian broad. 

 Tbe crowns of the molars are sligbtly concave. Tbe unique ni. 2 

 exhibits six transverse crests, two of wliicb are incomplete. Tiiiee 

 of tbe crests swell on tbe outer margin into three blunt cns])s, 

 separated by two indentations of tbe margin. The second and the 

 fifth crest do not reach the inner side ; the first and third, and tbe 

 fourth and sixth, are united together on the inner side by the raised 

 margin of tbe crown, leaving in tbe middle of this internal margin 

 a small opening, which corresponds to tbe interspace between tbe 

 third and the fourth crest. 



M. 1 is slightly longer than ra. 2, and exhibits four cusps on the 

 outer side, which in tbe one specimen are more distinctly separated 

 from each other than in the other by three indentations. Tlie 

 specimen of m. 1, in which tbe inner side is completely preserved, 

 shows this to be of tbe same conformation as the inner side of m. 2. 

 In addition to the six transverse crests of m. 2, the unbroken m. 1 

 exhibits a mere trace of a supplementary ridge in the interspace 

 between tbe first and tbe second crest ; and besides, tbe third crest 

 sends off" a ramification into the interspace between the second and 

 the third, near tbe inner margin. 



Tbe slight divergence between the above description and that 

 given by Scblosser is certainly not indicative of two different 

 species. I find variations of a similar kind in different specimens 

 of recent species, as for instance Eliomys nitedula, where the minor 

 ridges are sometimes reduced to almost imperceptible knobs. 

 Similar variations of Myoxine teeth are registered in Eeuvens' 

 monograph of existing Myoxidge.^ For the same reason I do not 

 attach any value to the slight divergences between my two 

 specimens from La Gi-rive, although they might seem to acquire 

 some importance by tbe fact of being of different size as well. In 

 tbe ramus with two molars preserved (M 5,298a), tbe alveoli of the 

 four cheek-teeth have a length of 3^ mm., in tbe other (M 5,2986) 

 of 4^ mm. 



As to the affinities with recent forms, Scblosser, when considering 

 the Steinbeim dormouse to be somewhat intermediate between Glis 

 and Eliomys, seems to have taken into consideration only one species 

 of tbe latter, E. quercinus. My view that the fossil is an Eliomys is 

 supported by the following characters : — 



(1) Perforation of the mandibular angle, whereby it agrees with 

 both Eliomys quercinus and E. nitedula, but differs from Glis. 



(2) Number and position of tbe roots. — As shown long ago by 

 Nehring,- there is considerable difference between Glis glis and 

 Eliomys quercinus in the alveoli of lower molars. "Each of the four 

 teeth of Glis glis has two alveoli, situated one behind tbe other 

 and not sharply separated in tbe anterior tooth. In E. quercinus tbe 

 premolar has only one root, each of tlie three molars three, two of 

 which are situated anteriorly, one by the side of tbe other, tbe third 



1 C. L. Eeuvens : " Die Myoxidse oder Schlafer " (1870). 



2 Op. cit., p. 738. 



DECADE IV. VOL. VI. NO. XI. 32 



