540 
which I have compared it, but neither of these characters 
I consider of much value in the present instance, as the 
latter animal having been a young one, these parts are less 
developed at this age than they would have been in mature 
life, a point I regret that I have not had an opportunity of 
verifying, by examining skulls of the Dog and Wolf of 
similar size and age. 
On comparing the two skulls from above, by far the most 
prominent character in the Wolf, is the greater breadth of 
the maxillary bones below the zygomatic arch. On viewing 
the under side, the larger size of the tympanic bones are 
also very striking, allowing greater capacity for the organs 
of hearing, another feature highly characteristic of the 
Wolf. As fossil bones are considerably heavier than those 
from recent animals, and lest any doubts might be entertained 
of its antiquity, I was desirous of testing this point, and 
the result was satisfactory. The skull of the recent 
Wolf weighed seven ounces, while that of the fossil 
Dog weighed ten ounces, which additional weight it 
would be unreasonable to suppose could be the effect of 
only a few years interment ; and, therefore, I conceive 
that any supposition of its recent existence is untenable, 
and, also, that the skull has belonged to a Dog, and 
not to a Wolf, is, I think, equally apparent from the dis- 
similar characters I have pointed out. 
Wishing for the opinion of my lamented and highly talented 
friend, the late Dr. Ball, M.R.I.A., of Trinity College, 
Dublin, I forwarded him a correct sketch of the skull in 
question, and received the following reply, which supports 
the supposition I have ventured to advance : — 
3, Granby-row, Dublin, July 30th, 1856. 
My Dear Sir, — The sketch you send is of the contour of a 
Wolfs head, of, perhaps, two years old; but, if the drawing be cor- 
rect in the proportions of the teeth, the largest molars and the 
