24 ‘PROCEEDINGS OF THE GEOLOGICAL society. [June 16, 
formed in its closed alveolus. The crowns of the last two premolars, 
and of the last true molar, were represented by the detached, first- 
formed, enamelled summits of their lobes: of that of the first pre- 
molar (p 2) I could find no trace, but a smooth round cell indicated 
that a matrix had been developed, and, by its situation beneath the 
interspace of the first and second milk-molars in place, that the tooth 
it was destined to form would -have displaced and succeeded both 
those milk-molars. The comparatively little-worn summits of the 
milk-molars showed the characters of their crowns better than in the 
more advanced jaw. The posterior oblique ridge in the third and 
fourth terminates in a minute tubercle. The slightly abraded sum- 
mit of the first true molar also showed a similar but better-developed 
tubercular termination of the posterior ridge. 
The detached molar teeth of the above-described species are inter- 
mediate in size between those of the Paleotherium crassum and Pa- 
leotherium curtum. The species to which they most nearly approxi- 
mate in this respect is that represented by Cuvier in pl. 4. fig. 1. of 
the ‘Ossem. Foss.,’ tom. ili, and referred to at p. 67, tom. iii, as one 
of the types of the Paleotherium medium*. I so strongly suspect 
an error in the reference to this species, and perceive so much in the 
figure that requires further elucidation, that I am disposed here to 
offer a few remarks respecting it. This remarkable fossil was first 
described and figured by M. Lamanon, in the ‘ Journal de Physique’ 
for March 1782: he comparesits dentition with that of many known 
living mammals, and arrives at the conclusion that it belongs to a 
species which no longer existed on the earth+. 
* One of the objects of a recent visit to Paris was to examine the original ; but 
M. Laurillard informed me that the specimen was not in the public collections at 
the Garden of Plants, and that it had been only temporarily entrusted to Baron 
Cuvier for description. 
t+ “‘ On ne peut enfin rapporter ces ossemens a aucun des animaux terrestres 
que nous connaissons.”’ (p. 184).—*‘ On est fondé a dire que c’est un animal dont 
Vespéce est perdue.”—‘ La forme des dents prouve qu’il se nourissait d’herbes 
et de poissons ; et je juge qu’il était Amphibie.” (2b. p. 185.) 
M. Cuvier, in citing this memoir of Lamanon’s, in the third volume of the first 
edition of the ‘ Ossemens Fossiles,’ p. 2, says: “ I] décrivit des dents, des vertébres 
et une moitié de téte dont nous parlerons dans la suite, qu’il jugea venir d’une 
espéce perdue d’Amphibie.” M. de Blainville blames the brevity of this citation, 
‘sans méme expliquer ce qu’en France alors on entendait sous ce nom:” and, 
after quoting Cuvier as having affirmed that Lamanon meant “ un amphibie que 
se nourissait de chair et de poissons,’” endeavours to fasten a charge of bad faith 
upon the author of the ‘ Ossemens Fossiles,’ by asserting that Lamanon had de- 
termined the fossil in question to be ‘‘un herbivore amphibie, comme on appelé 
alors le Tapir et l’ Hippopotame.” (Ostéographie, fasc. xxi. p.13.) What Lamanen 
understood, or what naturalists generally signified, by the term ‘Amphibie’ in 
1782, it would not be easy to define. In another place, M. de Blainville himself 
says: ‘‘ Il faut se rappeler que sous cette dénomination, en France, on comprenait 
alors les Phoques, les Hippopotames, les Loutres, les Castors.”? Now, M. Lamanon 
compares his fossil with the beaver, and concludes by supposing that in addition 
to herbs, the animal fed, like the seals and otters, on fish. Had Cuvier cited M. 
Lamanon as affirming his fossil animal to have fed on flesh and fish, he might have 
been open to the comments in which M. de Blainville indulges. But Cuvier’s 
words are: ‘ Lamanon....conclut que c’était un amphibie que vivait a la fois 
d@’herbe et de poisson.” (Ossemens Fossiles, 4to, iii. 1822, p. 27.) 
