26 PROCEEDINGS OF THE GEOLOGICAL society. [June 16, 
that species in having the molar teeth of the typical paleeotherian 
form; and in having the third premolar (P 3) bilobed. 
I may add that the coronoid process in fig. 1. pl. 4. tom. im. ‘ Ossem. 
Foss.’ is 3 inches 1 line in height, whilst that of fig. 2. pl. 42, 26., 
with much larger molar teeth, is only 2 inches | line in height*. 
The height of the coronoid process in the Hordle Palzeotherioid jaw 
is 2 imches 10 lines; its proportion to the teeth is therefore much 
nearer that of the Paleeotherium in pl. 4, than that of the older and 
larger Paleeotherium in pl. 42. tom. cit. 
The Paleotherium Aurelianense, the differential characters of whose 
upper molars from those of the typical Paleeotheres will be noticed 
in connexion with the fossil upper jaw of the Paloplotherium from 
Hordle, presents corresponding differences, as compared with the 
Montmartre Paleotheria, in the molar teeth of the lower jaw ; these 
differences are regarded as of generic value by M. V. Meyer, but by 
Cuvier as specific distinctions only ; and he thus describes them :— 
“The meeting (rencontre) of the two arches or crescents forms a 
double poimt at the middle of the internal surface (of the crown, 
fig. 5, ¢); whilst that pomt is always simple in the Paleeotheres of 
the environs of Paris.’”’—‘ The last lower molar has its third lobe 
shaped like a cone rather than a crescent.” 
The complete lower jaw of the immature Paleeotherioid from Hordle 
presents, as we have seen, the four false molars and the first and 
second true molars in place. 'The middle inner lobe (PI. IIT. fig. 3, m 1) 
is slightly bifid; but this is due to a cleft in the summit of that lobe, 
and not to an imperfect or interrupted meeting of the two crescents : 
the posterior crescent o! does not rise so high as the anterior one 0, 
but terminates by abutting against the middle bifid internal lobe, 
without forming a distinct pomt. The bifid character, therefore, is 
apparently differently produced, and is certainly much less marked in 
the lower molars of the Paloplotherium than it is described to be and 
is figured in the lower molars of the Paleotherium Aurelianense (An- 
* I regard this difference as decisive of the specific distinction of the two Pale- 
otheres above compared: both, however, are cited as examples of the Paleoth. 
medium in the ‘ Paleologica’ of V. Meyer, p. 84; the ‘ Fauna der Vorwelt’ (1847) 
of Siebel, p. 188; and other similar compilations. 
M. de Blainville, in the Critique on the Cuvierian species of Paleotherium, does 
not notice any of the differences between the skull and teeth figured in pl. 4, 
and the specimens figured in pls. 40 and 42, tom. iii. of the ‘Ossem. Fossiles’ : 
he states, however, that the original of Lamanon’s figure had recently been ac- 
quired for the Museum of the Jardin des Plantes (Ostéographie, fase. xxi. p. 26) : 
so that the comparisons which I had hoped to have made in August 1847 may 
still be carried out. M. de Blainville throws some doubt upon the specific di- 
stinction between Pal. medium and Pal. crassum, and ventures to affirm that all 
the species ‘“‘n’ont réellement été définies par M. G. Cuvier que d’aprés la gran- 
deur rélative,” 7. c. p. 66. But if even the differences of proportion by which 
Cuvier characterized his Paleotherium crassum (t. ili. p. 127) and Pal. latum 
(t. iii. p. 131) were not indicated in the above-cited and other passages of the 
‘ Ossemens Fossiles’ with a precision and frequency which makes one astonished 
at M. de Blainville’s assertion to the contrary, the naturalist might cite the Horse, 
the Zebra, the Ziggetai, and the common Ass, as accepted species, whose teeth 
and bones would yield less decisive evidence of specific distinction than those 
which Cuvier has so ably pointed out in the fossil remains of the Paleotheria. 
