4 ME. E. LTDEKKEK OF DACEITHEBIUM: OVINUM. 



tification of Xi-pJiodon platyceps ^ with Dacrytlierium proves to be 

 unfounded, the skull of that species, as pointed out by its describer, 

 clearly having no lachrymal fossa. 



In regard to the affinities of Dacrytlierium^ I am still inclined to 

 look upon it as most nearly allied to Anoplotherium. The structure 

 of the upper molars connects it, hovrever, rather with Hyopotamus 

 than with XipJiodon. Moreover, relationship with Hyopota7nus is 

 suggested by the presence of a descending flange to the angle of 

 the mandible ; while in that genus we also find a slight separation 

 of the first upper incisors in the middle line. If, moreover. Dr. M. 

 Schlosser is right in his suggestion that Dacrytherium was tetra- 

 dactylate, we shall have further indications of a certain affinity 

 between this Anoplotherioid and the Anthracotheriidce. 



EXPLANATION OF PLATE I. 



Figs. 1, la. Thu'd left upper molar of Dacrythermm ovioium, from the Phos- 

 phorites. } and -f, pr, protoeone ; pa, paraeone ; me, metacone ; hy, 

 hypocone ; j^l, protoconule. 



Figs. 2, 2a. Outer and oral ^iew of the right ramus of the mandible of ditto ; 

 from the Phosphorites. \. c, canine ; p. 1-4, premolars ; m, 1-3^ 

 molars. 



Fig. 3. Oral aspect of the left lower teeth of ditto ; from the Isle of Wight. \. 



Discussion. 



Mr. Chaeleswoeth said that he was wholly unacquainted with the 

 extinct Mammalian genus Dacrytherium, but if the now proposed 

 location of Dichobune ovina of Owen in the former genus were 

 accepted, this transfer involved the total elimination of the Ano- 

 plotherian sub-genus Dicliohune of Cavier from the British list, in 

 which it was placed by Sir Eichard Owen in the year 1846. It was' 

 very much to be regretted that Sir Eichard was not present to state 

 his views in regard to the grounds of the proposed transfer, as he had 

 told the speaker twenty years ago that he was then at work upon a 

 new edition of the ' History of British Fossil Mammals,' which edition 

 the speaker feared would hardly now be forthcoming, at least in the 

 life-time of the author. In 1841 Mr. Green, of Bacton, published 

 an account with figures of some Bacton fossil molar teeth, which Sir 

 Eichard Owen in the following year, at the Manchester meeting of 

 the British Association, treated of as referable to Dichobune. At the 

 conclusion of the meeting Mr. Charlesworth went to Norwich to see 

 the teeth in question, which had passed into the possession of the 

 Norwich Museum ; and a re-examination of these teeth proved their 

 supposed Anoplotherian characters to have originated in error. 

 In conclusion, the speaker said that all palseontological history 

 demonstrated the imperative necessity for not accepting finality in 

 the revision of generic identifications until the views advanced by 

 one palseontologist met with confirmation by other workers in the 

 same field of scientific research. 



Mr. E. T. Newtok felt every confidence in accepting Mr. Lydekker's- 

 correction of the synonymy of the forms alluded to in this paper. 

 ^ Flower, Proc. Zool. Soc. 1876, p. 3, pi i. 



