144 PEOE. E. EAT LANKESTEE ON THE 



On the Tusks of the Fossil "Walrus found in the Eed Crag of 

 Suffolk. By E. Eat Lankestee, M.A., E.E.S., F.L.S., Pro- 

 fessor of Zoology and Comparative Anatomy in University 

 College, London. 



[Read May 6, 1880. Abstract.] 

 In this communication (which will be published in full in the 

 Society's Transactions, with illustrations) the author explains that, 

 at the suggestion of Prof. P. J. van Beneden in 1864, he had 

 generically named the fossil "Walrus-tusks obtained from the 

 Suffolk Crag Trichecodon, and that in his account of the speci- 

 mens published in the Geological Society's Journal, 1865, they 

 accordingly were denoted as Trichecodon Huxleyi. "With more 

 perfect specimens since at his command, he now withdraws the 

 generic term, substituting that of Trichechus, desiring that the 

 remains then and now described should hereafter be recognized 

 as Trichechus Huxleyi (Lankester sp., 1865). 



"With further reference to the nomenclature of the fossil "Wal- 

 ruses of the Pliocene deposits of Suffolk and Belgium, in the 

 splendidly illustrated memoir of the fossil remains of marine Car- 

 nivora obtained from the environs of Antwerp, Prof, van Beneden 

 describes* various bones of "Walrus-like animals under two genera, 

 viz. Trichecodon and Alachtherium. "Without discussing the value 

 of the generic characters, Prof. Lankester, nevertheless, points 

 out that Yicomte du Bus t had previously proposed the name 

 Alachtherium, and that Trichecodon had been preoccupied by 

 himself (1865), supra. In default of specimens showing both 

 bones and tusks in juxtaposition, it is perfectly hopeless to attempt 

 to identify either Prof, van Beneden's own fragment of a tusk or 

 the Suffolk specimens with those bones which he calls Alachthe- 

 rium, on the one hand, or with those which he calls Trichecodon, 

 on the other. At the same time, should there really be only one 

 "Walrus-like animal proper to this period, neither Alachtherium 

 Cretesii of Du Bus (1867), nor Trichecodon Koninckii of Van 

 BenedenJ (1871) have priority as its title, but Trichecodon Hux- 

 leyi, Lankester (1865). 



The conclusion then arrived at by the author, from a careful 

 consideration of Prof, van Beneden's statements in his large 

 monograph (1877), and from that of his shorter memoir (1871), 



* Armalesdu Musee Royale d'Histoire Naturelle de Belgique, tome i. (1877). 



t Bulletin de l'Acad. Roy. Belg. 1867, p. 562. 



| Bull, de l'Acad. Roy. Belg. 2 e ser. torn, xxxii. p. 164. 



