498 Dr. C. I. Forsyth Major — On Fossil Dormice. 



one posteriorly, near the outer margin of the jaw." ^ From what 

 has been stated before, it follows that the fossil agrees with Eliomys 

 guercinus in the number and position of the roots. 



(3) Concavity of the crown. — This feature has been already 

 pointed out by Schlosser. 



(4) Pattern of the cheek-teeth. — Schlosser remarks that, in 

 opposition to Eliomys, the fossil shares with Olis the large number 

 of transverse crests. However, the eastern species of Eliomys, 

 E. nitedula, has quite as many as Glis, and in their arrangement 

 agrees more with the fossil than does the last-named genus. In 

 tlie latter the transverse crests are much more loosely, or not at all, 

 connected by a raised internal margin, so that the triturating surface 

 approaches the form of a rasp, a feature of the molars which is still 

 more distinctly exhibited by Muscardinvs. 



By the specific name E. Hamadryns, which I propose for the fossil 

 from Steinheim and La Grive — taking M 5,2986 from La Grive as 

 tlie type of the species — I wish to recall its affinity with the recent 

 E iomys nitedula, Pall. {E. Dryas, Schreb.). It is distinguished from 

 tlie latter by superior size and by m. 1 being larger than m. 2, while 

 the reverse is the case in the recent species. 



The supposed second species of dormouse from Sansan cannot be 

 seriously considered, because it has not been described ; and from 

 the way in which Lartet mentions it, it appears that he entertained 

 doubts about its affinities: " Myoxiis'^? incertus. — D'apres quelques 

 dents molaires et des os des extremites annon^ant une autre espece 

 de Zoir plus grand que le Lerot." ^ E. Hamadryas is smaller than 

 E. quercirms, whilst this problematic fossil is said to be larger. 



It only remains to compare E. Hamadryas with the Lower Miocene 

 dormice ; but I have scarcely any material for comparison, and, 

 besides, the two horizons have not to my knowledge a single 

 mammalian species in common. Of the three mandibles which 

 are noticed in the Catalogue of Fossil Mammalia in the British 

 Museum^ under the heading Myoxus mnrinus, Pomel, only No. 31,118, 

 from the Lower Miocene of the AUier (Bravard Collection), is 

 a dormouse. The two others, No. M 1,629, from the Upper Eocene 

 of Caylux, France, as well as No. 34,904, from the Lower Miocene 

 of Puy-de-D6me, France, belong to the genus £omys, which has 

 been placed by Winge into the family Dipodidas.* The supposed 

 close agreement between the cheek-teeth of M 1,629 and Filhol's 

 figures of ' Myoxus murinus ' only exists so far as the dimensions 

 are concerned. 



Of the cheek-teeth only the first true molar is preserved in the 

 right mandibular ramus from Allier (No. 31,118) ; it shows that 



^ U. nitedula has been sometimes considered to be a species of Glis. Besides 

 the agreements -with E. qucrcinus pointed out in the text, the upper molars of 

 E. nitedula likewise decidedly favour the same view, as has been shown by Winge : 

 ■Vidensk. Medd. Naturh. For. Kjobenhavn f. Aaret, 1881, pp. 51, 52 (1882). 



2 Op. cit., p. 20. 



3 I'arti (1885), pp. 224-5. 



* H Winee, " Jordfundne og nulevende Gnavere, etc." : E Museo Luudii, I, 

 iii (IB87), pp. 118, 166. 



