wre Geology and Paleontology. 571 
sented complete, is really complete. I doubt it, and believe that there 
was a ‘‘ post-pubis,”’ which is simply broken away in the specimen.— 
GEORGE Baur, Ph.D. New York, May 7th, 78 
[NOTE ON THE Asove.—The ‘‘ two-rooted teeth’’ described by 
Prof. Marsh, and referred to above by Dr. Baur, are not such in point 
of fact. The appearance of two roots is produced by the absorption 
of the middle part of a single root by the crown of the successional 
young tooth. After the absorption has progressed sufficiently far, the 
less direct of the two branches is generally broken off, so that teeth 
with both preserved are less abundant than those with a single half- 
root. Teeth of this kind were figured by Leidy as belonging to 
Trachodon, and were described by me as representing the new genus 
Dysganus in the Proceedings of the Philadelphia Academy for 1876. 
They are very abundant in the Laramie formation.—E. D. Cop OPE. | 
Extinct Quadrumana.—Professor Gaudry has published in the 
new Memoirs of the Geological Society of France an interesting paper 
on the Dryopithecus fontanit Lartet, of which a new mandible has been 
recently discovered in France. This mandible is more perfect than 
any hitherto obtained, as it has the symphysis with the incisor teeth, 
and all the molars except the last of one side. Prof. Lartet supposed 
that the genus Dryopithecus approached nearer to Homo than any of 
the existing apes, on account of the probable later appearance of the 
mn (wisdom tooth) than in the latter, Prof. Gaudry’s specimen shows 
that the symphysis is longer than in any of the existing anthropoids, 
and that the anterior premolar is relatively larger. Its relationships 
are therefore not towards Homo, but away from him, and towards the 
true monkeys. The last inferior molar was evidently erupted at 
about the same time as the inferior canine, and not before it, as in 
many monkeys; but Gaudry shows that in several monkeys and apes 
the period of protrusion of the 7 is the same as that seen in the 
Dryopithecus. The latter is nearer to the gorilla in dentition than to 
either the orang or chimpanzee. It was smaller than either, 
Under the name of Dolichopithecus ruscinensis, M. Charles Deperet 
describes in the Comptes Rendus, a species of monkey, of which a skull 
was found by Dr. Bonneman near to Perpignan, tégether with numer- 
ous other bones. The dentition is in general that of Macacus, but the 
limbs have the slender proportions of those of the Semnopithecus. 
The genus is then close to the Mesopithecus of Gaudry, from which, 
indeed, M. Deperet does not satisfactorily separate it. It differs from 
the M. pentelici by its larger size, larger face, and larger heel of the 
last inferior molar. The monkey of the Val d’ Arno, Au/axinus floren- 
tinus, is still smaller, and has a much shorter muzzle. 
