ON THE BONES OF THE MASTODON. 349 



their great celebrity in Europe until the years 1760 and 1770, when 

 they were made known by the Memoirs of Collinson and of William 

 Hunter. 



Notices of some of those Avhich I am about to mention, were in 

 existence long prior to that period ; but naturalists had passed them 

 by unregarded, for want of objects of comparison ; and when the 

 teeth of the Ohio had become known, they confounded the others with 

 them, so that it has been reserved for me to point out the specific dif- 

 ferences of tliose mentioned before my time, and to make known, for 

 the first time, many of which the world were wholly ignorant. 



To begin with 1656, we find a figure, which may be easily recog- 

 nized in the "Museo" of Moscardi, page 122 : it is announced to be the 

 tooth of a giant. A second was published by Grew in 1681, (Mus. 

 Soc. Reg. pi. xix, fig. 1), under the title of " The petrified Tooth of 

 a Marine Animal." Camper alludes to this figure (Nov. Act. Petrop. ii, 

 p- 259) as if it were belonging to the species of the Ohio. 



In 17 i 5, Reaumur, describing the turquoise mines of Simorre, and 

 demonstrating that these turquoises were nothing more than the bones 

 and teeth of different species, petrified and impregnated with some 

 metallic oxide, had an engraving taken of a tooth similar to that of 

 Grew, being likewise under the impression that it might have belonged 

 to some marine animal, (Mem. Acad. Sciences, 1715, p. 174). 



In 1755, Dargenville represented one entire, which he too was of 

 opinion was the production of a fish unknown. (Oryctology, pi. xviii, 

 fig. 8). Knorr gave another of them in his "Monuments," plate viii; 

 and Walsh, in his Commentary upon those plates, contented himself 

 with a reference to Dargenville. Neither of these authors specifies 

 the origin of his piece. 



In the meantime, some specimens of the teeth of Simorre had been 

 brought home, and deposited in the King's Museum. Daubenton de- 

 scribed them, but without figures (Nat. Hist, xii. No. 1109, 1110, and 

 llll,andadded to themNo. 1112), the piece represented by Reaumur, 

 under the title of Petrified Teeth, bearing a resemblance to those of 

 the hippopotamus ; while to those of the Ohio with six denticuli, the 

 only ones of that immense species then known to him, he gave the 

 name of " fossil teeth of the hippopotamus." 



From that period he distinguished the one from the other, to a cer- 

 tain point ; but they were soon utterly confounded. 



In 1767, Joseph Baldasson described and represented in the Memoirs 

 of the Academy of Sienna, vol. iii, p. 243, two large portions of the 

 lower jaw, found at Mount Foilonico, near Monte- Pulciano, and pro- 

 nounced the teeth to be precisely similar to those of Guettard, which 

 belonged to the large species. 



One of these teeth, a very large one, vv^as found at Trevoux, in 1784, 

 by M. de Lolliere, in a hillock of sand. It was noticed in 1785, by 

 M. de Morveau, in the 6th vol. of the Academy of Dijon, page 102, as 

 if it had belonged to the species of Ohio. 



Camper likewise speaks of it under this name (Nov. Act. Petrop. ii), 

 as does Merk in his third Letter, p. 28. 



This same year, 1785, Ildephonse Kennedy described three portions 

 of these teeth, and gave drawings of them in the new Philosophical 



