316 MESSRS. HANCOCK AND ATTHEY 



by a mere fragment, which is placed close to the fractured mar- 

 gin of the specimen. 



In number and size the teeth do not exactly correspond to 

 those of the specimen from the Lanarkshire Coal-Field described 

 by Professor Huxley ;* but the disparity in these respects does 

 not amount to much. In the Scotch specimen there are thirteen 

 teeth described in the left prsemaxilla and maxilla, while nine- 

 teen are enumerated as attached to the same bones of the right 

 side. In our specimen there are thirteen maxillary teeth on the 

 right side and three praemaxillary teeth on the left, one or two 

 apparently being wanting. So it would seem that the Newsham 

 specimen, when perfect, had, in all probability, sixteen or seven- 

 teen teeth in the upper jaw on each side ; but as the number in 

 the two sides does not apparently agi'ee in the Scotch specimen, 

 our specimen may have had two or three teeth more or less on 

 either side, thus altering the number to thirteen or nineteen, as 

 in the specimen described by Professor Huxley. 



The palatal teeth, however, are wanting in the Newsham 

 specimen. On the left side the bone to which they are attached 

 is broken away ; but on the right side there is a ridge behind 

 the vomerine tusk, which, perhaps, may be the alveolar plate ; 

 if so, the teeth have been removed ; there are, however, some 

 fragments in the vicinity, which possibly belong to the palatal 

 teeth of this side. 



The teeth on the whole are somewhat less than those of the 

 Scotch specimen, and this disagreement cannot be accounted for 

 by the difference in size of the skulls. The Scotch skull is 5*3 

 inches in width opposite the vomerine tusks. Our specimen 

 measures across the same region 5"5 inches ; so the latter would 

 appear to be the larger of the two. But this is probably not the 

 case, for our fragment seems to be a little widened by pressure. 

 The skull, however, of our specimen, when perfect, could not 

 be much, if at all, smaller than that described from Scotland, 

 which is stated to be 15 inches long, and 12 inches wide at the 



* Journal of the Geological Soc, Vol. XIX., p. 56, 1863. 



