106 FOSSIL MAMMALIA OF THE 



Biprotodon, Thylacinus, and Sarcophilus;" also of the " upper incisor and lower incisor of 

 Felis ti(/ris;" showing the relative size of the teeth in these animals, and, he asserts, 

 " proving sufficiently that the Thylacoleo was far inferior in strength to a modern Tiger, 

 and no match for ponderous Diprotodons and Nototheriums." ^ 



If the carnassial tooth were selected instead of an incisor, it would show, on the above 

 basis, that Tliylacoleo was " far superior in strength and carnivority to the modern tigers 

 and lions/' But I would submit that the relative size of a single tooth, if even the 

 objector were able to recognise the homologous one in other Mammals, is not a decisive 

 or sufficient test in the present question. It is evident that Mr. Krefft's figures 7 and 8 

 are sections of the canine, not the incisor, .of the Tiger. But if the canine of the Hippo- 

 potamus were exemplified by a similar section, it would be no element, or a very deceptive 

 one, in concluding as to the strength or -carnivority of Behemoth. The canines of 

 Moschus and other like instances will at once suggest themselves to the competent 

 comparative anatomist.^ 



To the vague and rhetorical assertion of the ' gigantic Nototheres,' &c., being 

 " many times as large as the Thylacoleo," I will oppose a few matters of fact and 

 mensuration. The length of the skull of the largest species of Nototherium {N. Mitchelli) 

 is one foot six inches : ^ the length of the skull of Thylacoleo carnifex is nine inches eight 

 lines ; were the occipital ridge and spine entire in the specimen measured, it might be 

 set down at ten inches. It will be within the bounds of accuracy to say that the 

 Notothere was twice as large as the Thylacoleo. The skull of the Biprotodon is three 

 feet in length : it is, however, large in proportion to the trunk and limbs: bulk for bulk, 

 it was probably not much, if at all, larger in comparison with the Thylacoleo, than is the 

 Giraffe in proportion to its destroyer the Lion. The disproportion between the Wolverene 

 {Gulo lusctts) and its prey, the Reindeer, must be greater than that which the dimensions of 

 the known fossils of Thylacoleo and Biprotodon suggest. The length of a Lion's 

 skull before me is one foot ; that of the skull of a South African Giraffe is two feet two 

 inches. 



If we next compare, not a single tooth, merely, but the whole lethal dental weapons 

 of Thylacoleo and Felis tigris, we get the following results. The length from the fore 

 part of the laniary to the hind part of the carnassial, upper jaw, is in Thylacoleo four 

 inches two lines ; in Felis tigris, three inches seven fines ; in Felis spelaa, four inches ; in 

 the lower jaw the same measurement in Thylacoleo carnifew gives four inches three lines. 



' " On the Dentition of Thylacoleo rMrnifex" (Ow.) : in the ' Annals and Magazine of Natural History,' 

 3rd series, vol. xviii, 1866, p. 148. 



2 Prof. Flower, F.R.S., however, lends his sanction to Mr. Krefft's objection, and rejects the hypo- 

 thesis " that Thylacoleo was the destroyer of the gigantic herbivorous Marsupials (many times as large as 

 itself) with which its remains are found associated, the Diprotodons and the Nototheres." 'Quarterly 

 Journal of the Geological Society,' vol. xxiv (1868), p. 318. 



2 Owen, " On some Outline Drawings and Photographs of the Skull of Nototherium," ' Quarterly 

 Journal of the Geological Society of London,' vol. xv, p. 173, pi. vii (1858). 



