1847.] OWEN ON ENGLISH EOCENE MAMMALIA. — 25 
But Lamanon imagined it to be an aquatic animal, and calls it an 
‘amphibiolite sans analogues’ (p. 185). 
The engraving of the fossil in pl. 2. of the ‘ Journal de Physique,’ 
Mars 1782, is, as Cuvier rightly observes, reduced one-third ; (the 
original drawing was probably, as Lamanon states, p. 183, of the 
natural size). The engraving in the ‘Ossemens Fossiles’ has the 
superior advantage of both being of* the natural size, and of having 
been drawn by Cuvier’s own hand :—‘“ dessinée par moi-méme au 
compas*.” 'The lower jaw shows four entire bilobed molars, d, e, 
J, g, m place, the roots of another anterior to them (/), and the germ 
of a sixth beneath the base of the coronoid process at m3; which 
Cuvier describes as the “ germe de molaire postérieure inférieure.”’ 
He does not appear to have determined its tripartite structure. But 
assuming that so characteristic a form of the last true molar had not 
escaped, as it was little likely to do, the notice of Cuvier, and that it 
had afforded him the true ground for his determination of the tooth, 
then the molars marked d and e must be the second and ‘first true 
molars: and as the next tooth in advance, f, has but two semicylin- 
drical lobes, it cannot be the last deciduous molar ; since this would 
show the three divisions in a true Paleotherium, like the species 
figured by Lamanon. ‘The teeth, then, that are present in the speci- 
men must be, according to the description given by Cuvier, the follow- 
ing: gis p 3, fis p 4, e ism 1, and dis m 2; or the series in place 
consists of the third premolar and the penultimate molar inclusive. 
Now the antero-posterior extent of these four teeth is 2 mches 5 lines 
(6 centimeters) ; that of the same teeth in the Paleotherium medium 
(pl. 40. fig. 1) bemg 3 inches 6 lines (9 centimeters). Lamanon 
says the jaw is 6 inches (French) in length (the admeasurement 
does not include the condyle); that of Paleotherium medium in 
pl. 40. is 9 inches (French) between the same parts. 
The difference in the size of the jaws figured in pl. 4. and pl. 40. 
tom. i. of the ‘Ossemens Fossiles’ might be explained by a difference 
of age in the original specimens ; but as the size of the crowns of the 
teeth do not alter with age, the great discrepancy in this respect 
between the two specimens seems to be quite incompatible with their 
specific agreement. 
Both specimens are however called Paleotherium medium by 
Cuvier, in his reference to the typical examples of that species at p. 67, 
tom. cit. and the editors of the posthumous 8vo edition ascribe the 
figure 1. pl. 4. (their pl. 83) to the ‘young Paleotherium medium.’ 
The great discrepancy, however, in the size of the permanent molar 
teeth, is neither accounted for, nor indeed adverted to. The indica- 
tions of the canine and incisors may be those of the milk-teeth, since 
these are not shed in Rumimants until the permanent molars and pre- 
molars are in place: the much-worn and broken tooth / may be the 
second milk-molar, also not shed; but the four entire and evidently 
permanent molars indicate a species of Paleotherium intermediate in 
size between the Pal. crassum and the Pal. curtum ; or one of nearly 
the dimensions of the Paloplotherium of Hordle ; but differing from 
* Annales du Muséum, iii. p. 292. 
