No. 386.) REVIEWS OF RECENT LITERATURE. 175 
ently related this form to the herbivorous diprotodont marsupials. 
In 1868 Flower presented the entirely contradictory view, that Thyla- 
coleo differed in every respect from the carnivorous marsupials, and 
was simply a harmless vegetable feeder, totally unfitted for preying 
upon the large contemporary marsupials. This called forth a violent 
reply from Owen in 1871. But subsequently Flower’s position was 
supported by Krefft and Lyddeker, and is the one now generally 
received. 
Dr. Broom’s excuse for reviving this question is, that in general 
he has concluded to support Owen’s opinion. He says there are 
insuperable difficulties in the way of considering Thylacoleo as a 
bulb or fruit eater. With its remarkable dentition such an animal 
would be unable to do more than slice its fruits and vegetables, even 
if it could have procured both in abundance. With succulent roots 
and bulbs the same difficulty arises as with the fruits; that even the 
most succulent, if we could suppose them digestible in slices, cannot 
be had in a succulent condition all the year round. When we look 
at Thylacoleo, he continues, we find not only the enormous temporal 
muscles and only moderate masseters, as in carnivorous animals, but 
that everything about the skull seems to be built on carnivorous 
lines. There is thus in his opinion no other conclusion tenable than 
that Thylacoleo was a purely carnivorous animal, and one which 
would be quite able to kill and probably did kill animals as large or 
larger than itself. He then proceeds to show in what manner 
Thylacoleo could have originated from small, shrew-like forms of 
Phalangers. 
In the reviewer’s opinion this revival of Owen’s view is quite 
unjustifiable. It appears that the main argument of Dr. Broom is 
based upon the relations of the muscles of the jaw, and in reply it 
may be observed that all the early types of North American Her- 
bivora of the Eocene period have enormous temporal fosse and power- 
ful sagittal crests as an inheritance from. their Unguiculate or clawed 
ancestors. These temporal fossz are so different from the rounded 
skulls of recent Herbivora, that one is very apt to be misled. The 
reviewer recalls very distinctly his discovery twenty years ago of the 
back portion of the skull of Palzosyops, an ancestral Titanothere, 
with its powerful zygomatic arches and large sagittal crest. These 
carnivorous structures led to the entirely mistaken belief that. this 
peaceful herbivore was a new and exceptionally large carnivore. 
Dr. Broom’s reasoning appears to be entirely similar and equally 
false. H. F. 0. 
