IS^G.] OWEN ON THE FOSSIL FOX OF CENINGEN. 59 



pears to be too deep in proportion to its length, as compared with 

 that of a Fox," judiciously adds, " But this is owing to the displace- 

 ment of the lower jaw, the right ramus of which is thrown above 

 the left*." 



M. von Meyer then says, " There is a remarkable part at the 

 hinder angle of the lower jaw which does not exist in the Fox." 

 In the fossil, however, the part in question presents merely the re- 

 mains of the produced angle of the jaw, characteristic of both Ca- 

 nidce and Viverridcs ; a small portion of the matrix is left to support 

 this process, which is not distinguished from the bony matter in the 

 lithograph copies by M. von Meyer, and it gives the character, 

 therefore, of a longer angular process, and one that is produced 

 downwards ; but this character does not exist in the lower jaw of 

 the fossil. 



M. von Meyer remarks, that the figures in the * Geol. Trans.' (he 

 alludes to figs. 1 and 2, pi. 34) exhibit an anterior basal tubercle in 

 the third, fourth, and even the second molars, which is not found in 

 any species of Canis, except in the deciduous teethf. The charac- 

 ter alluded to by that acute observer is, however, exaggerated in the 

 figures cited. In fig. 1. pi. 54, of the natural size, drawn with scru- 

 puloufi accuracy, the true form of the premolars may be better ap- 

 preciated. In regard to the development of the anterior tubercle, 

 the difi^erence as compared with the Fox or other species of Canis is 

 one of degree ; most of the existing species having the tubercle in 

 question, but much more rudimental, viewed from the inner side ; 

 whilst Canis (^Lycaon) pictus has it more developed than in the 

 fossil. The true diff'erences manifested by the lower molar teeth of 

 the fossil are those which I have pointed out above, in the form and 

 development of the posterior tubercle of the premolars, and in the 

 relative proportions of the difi'erent teeth ; characters which, as be- 

 fore remarked, indicate a more Viverrine or tropical form of Canis 

 than is now known to exist. 



With regard to the rest of the skeleton, M. von Meyer merely 

 repeats the remarks which Dr. Mantell himself has made, with the 

 addition of M. de Blainville's notice of the more robust proportions 

 of the feet. The characteristic Viverrine development of the pollex 

 seems to have escaped the notice of the distinguished palaeontologist 

 of Frankfort. 



* Geol. Trans, loc. cit. p. 291. 



t " Nach diesen Abbildungen wiirde der dritte, vierte, und, wie es scheint, sogar 

 der zweite Backenzahn einen Vorderansatz besitzen, der in Canis iiberhaupt nicht, 

 Oder etwa nur an den Milchzahnen wahrgenommen wird," loc. cit. p. 4. I have 

 described this peculiarity of the deciduous dentition of the genus Canis in my 

 ' Odontography,' vol. i. p. 477 : " In the lower jaw the first deciduous molar re- 

 sembles that above, but has the anterior and posterior basal tubercles better 

 marked : the second is similar, but larger." The comparison cannot be extended 

 beyond these two teeth in regard to the supposed character of the fossil. The 

 milk dentition of Canis shows, in this respect, a closer resemblance to the Viverrine 

 and the general carnivorous type of the premolars than does the mature dentition ; 

 and the fossil Canis, to the degree in which it resembles the immature dentition 

 of the existing species, shows, like many other ancient extinct forms, the retention 

 of a greater degree of immature characters, or of the general type, than do the 

 recent species. 



