120 PROCEEDINGS OF THE GEOLOGICAL sociETy. [Nov. 3, 
d’aprés sa grandeur, un peu d’aprés les dents,” and perhaps, M. de 
Blainville even adds, because I found it not to belong to either 
Anoplotherium or Paleotherium, he says he is far from thinking 
that it belongs to the Cheropotamus of M. Cuvier. 
The portion of the lower jaw from the Paris basin, which is the 
original basis of that genus, recalls to M. de Blainville rather the 
characters of the Anthracotherium of Cadibona and Digoin ; whilst 
the mandible, referred to Cheropotamus by me, seems to him to 
have belonged to a great species of Sus*. M. de Blainville then 
proceeds to compare with the original fragment of the lower jaw of 
the Cheropotamus from the Paris basin, the upper jaw subsequently 
referred to the same species by Cuvier. 
M. de Blainville gives a description of the teeth in that upper jaw 
in some respects less accurate than that originally given by Cuvier : 
he admits a well-marked difference between the third premolar and 
that in the Anthracotherium, but states that the form of the three 
true molars perfectly recalls that of their homologues in the 
Anthracotherium of Cadibona and Digoin, save that the tubercles 
are less salient and less angular, which gives a rounder circumference 
to the teetht+. M. de Blainville then proceeds to describe the ori- 
ginal fragment of the lower jaw on which Cuvier founded the genus 
Cheropotamus, and from which I shall transcribe the description of 
the tooth the homologue of which exists in the Isle of Wight man- 
dible. ‘‘Sur cette méme piéce, on trouve, aprés une barre tranchant 
médiocre, une premicre dent assez forte, triangulaire, un peu com- 
primée, le sommet légerement arqué, avec deux racines trés-diver- 
gentes et subégales.”’ 
In his account of the Isle of Wight mandible, referred by me to 
the Cheropotamus, M. de Blainville writes :—‘‘ Aprés une barre qui 
parait n’avoir offert 4 M. R. Owen aucune trace de dent ni d’alvéole, 
vient une premiere dent triangulaire comprimée, légérement recourbée 
au sommet, et portée sur deux racines trés-divergentes, a postérieure 
bien plus grosse que V antérieure.” 
M. de Blainville then describes the parts which exist in the Isle 
of Wight specimen, but which are wantimg in the Parisian one, and 
concludes :—‘‘ D’ou l’on voit combien il y a peu de rapports entre ce 
systéme dentaire et celui de la mandibule de Paris.”” However, the 
only difference which he mentions im the parts which he could com- 
pare, is the subequality of the two fangs of the first premolar in the 
Paris specimen, and the larger size of the hind fang in the Isle of 
Wight specimen, which difference really does not exist. 
In a recent visit to Paris I took over a good plaster-cast of the 
fossil mandible in question from the Isle of Wight, and compared. it 
with the original fossil fragment described by Cuvier: from the dif 
ference alleged by M. de Blainville to exist between its dentary 
system and that in the Isle of Wight mandible, I was led to suppose 
* “Tandis que le mandibule que lui a rapportée M. R. Owen me semble pro- 
venir d’une grande espéce de Sus.” (p. 150.) Yet the mandible of the Wild Boar 
is one-third larger than that of the Cheropotamus Cuvieri. 
+ Ostéographie, fase. xxi. p. 131. 
