718 NATURAL HISTORY MISCELLANY. 
ons of the science of paleontology must be wrong, or that errors 
both of fact and of definition must have been committed by one 
or other of the intellectual combatants. 
Ds ee Qq a 
is ait, Æmilius ; utii creditis, quirites ? 
t=] 
Though the species of animal, therefore, is of trifling dimensions, 
` and though the technical argument is too complex to be entered - 
into on the present occasion, we must examine how far the canons 
of the science have been obeyed. Cuvier has said, “ La premiére 
chose à faire dans l'étude d’un animal fossile, est de reconnaitre 
la forme de ses dents molaires; on détermine par 1A g'il est car- 
nivore ou herbivore.” The few and small molars of Plagiaulas, 
however, bore no relation whatever to the like molars in any other 
herbivorous animal; while many other characters— e. g. the cut- 
ting and salient angle of the molar and premolar teeth ; the broad, 
high, and nearly vertical coronoid process ; and the very low po- 
sition of the articular condyle — amply demonstrate to the satis- 
faction of Professor Owen and his disciples the absolute reverse 
of Dr. Falconer’s theory. Plausible as the latter was, resting en- 
tirely on the apparent resemblance of one solitary tooth (and 
that one not even a molar) with the premolar tooth of the kan- 
 garoo-rat, the words of Owen are amply confirmed, ‘that the 
prominent appearances which first catch the eye and indicate a 
conformable conclusion are deceptive ; and that the less obtrusive 
phenomena which require searching out, more frequently when 
their full significance is reasoned up to, guide to the right com- 
prehension of the whole. It is as if truth were whispered rather 
than outspoken by Nature.” 
The lesson, therefore which students ought to learn is that the 
true affinities of an animal do not lie on the surface of the speci- 
men; that one solitary premolar tooth is inadequate on which to 
found a theory of the ‘ saltatory ” nature of the animal to which 
it belonged ; and that the theory of Dr. Falconer, adroitly though 
it has been supported by many apparent or accidental coinciden- 
ces has not stood its ground before the more elaborate, more pro- 
found, and at the same time more simple interpretation of the 
affinities of Plagiaulax originally suggested by Professor Owen. 
After the lapse of some years (in fact since 1847) the oldest 
known mammal is still the Microlestes of the Triassic beds © 
Wurtemberg. This perhaps bears some slight resemblance to 
