Notes on the Form of the Carnassial Tooth of Car- 
nivorous Mammals. 
(With a critical sketch of the most important. tooth-cusp-theories). 
By j 
mag. sc. K. $. Bardenflet 
No organ is more important in the systematie classification 
of the mammals than the tooth. The. dentition ought certainly not 
to be the only basis of classification; but as the teeth are the only 
remnants of many of the fossil mammals, a classification which is 
not mainly based upon them will always be incomplete. And being 
at the same. time a conservative organ, showing the original. cha- 
racter through all alterations, as well as a plastic material, accom- 
modating itself to the most widely differing demands, the teeth are 
besides well qualified to form the. basis of a classification. 
From an early date, therefore, we have exact comparative 
morphological descriptions of the mammalian teeth (Cuvier, Owen, 
Giebel and others). They however regard every type of tooth as 
an isolated phenomenon without any attempt at bringing them under 
the same point of view. It was only after the victorious Theory 
of Evolution had established the descent of the manifold types of 
animals from one or a few archetypes,. that one began to look for 
the primeval type of the mammalian tooth. 
Apart from the attempts of Ritimeyer and Kowalewsky 
the American naturalists are leading the way. In "Methods of Crea- 
tion” 1871 Cope explained the complicated teeth as having been 
formed by "complex repetition” of an unicuspid tooth (e. g. in 
Delphinus). In 1874 he. pointed out the- four types: haplodont, 
5% 
