Mr. P. Lake on Hqjpopoianms from Barrington. 319 



The molars ai-e well worn, except the last, which, however, is 

 worn to some extent at all its cusps. Hence the animal must have 

 been mature, though probably it had only just reached that age. 



In order to show the points of difference and resemblance arrived 

 at by a comparison of this jaw with that of an unmistakable H. major, 

 I have drawn up the following table of measurements. The first 

 column of figures gives the measurements taken from the jaw in 

 question ; the second, those taken from a typical jaw of H. major, 

 of the same length, in the Woodwardian Museum. 



The new jaw. Jaw of S. 



Length— Condyle to canine 



Breadth — Canine to canine 



Width at top just in front of the last premolar . . 

 Width at the widest part of the jaw just below 



this point 



Depth of jaw at the last molar 



Depth of jaw in front of last premolar 



Length of the part of the canine out of the socket 



(measured along the convex side) 



Length of the part of the middle incisors out of 



the socket 



4* 

 U 



ft. 



in. 



ft. 



in. 



1 



9 



1 



9 



1 



4 



1 



5 







5 







5 





 

 



9i* 

 5* 





 

 



n 



8t 



* Part of the left side of the jaw being missing here, about half an inch has been 

 added to bring the width to what it actually would be if the specimen were perfect, 

 t This is the observed length, but fully an inch is missing. 



The outer incisors of the jaw are perfect and project only an 

 inch, or even less, out of their sockets ; but those in the typical jaw 

 with which I have compared them are broken off. They are, how- 

 ever, much thicker than in the new jaw. 



The molar teeth are exactly like those of S. major. Among the 

 canines found separately at Barrington, there are small ones like 

 those belonging to the new jaw, and larger ones belonging to 

 H. major. But there is no passage between these two kinds. 

 Among all the other remains there is no evidence of there being two 

 kinds of Hippopotamus here. 



In discussing the nature of this jaw, it may be assumed that it is 

 (1) a new species, (2) an immature H. major, or (3) a female of 

 H. major. 



It can scarcely be considered to be a new species, for the only 

 difference from H. major is the size of the canines and incisors and 

 the natural accompaniment of diminished weight and sti'ength of 

 the jaw and of the canine sockets. There are enough of the other 

 remains to assume that if there were any other difference, we should 

 be able to detect it. It is not likely that the remains of this kind 

 of Hippopotamus should be restricted to canines and incisors, while 

 we get so many other parts of R. major. 



Again, the jaw does not seem to be immature. The dentition is 

 adult, the last molar having completely risen from its alveolus, and 

 being worn down to some extent. Moreover, among the other re- 

 mains, there is no passage between the two kinds of canines. 

 Finally, the jaw is as long as that of a full-grown E. major. 



