BIRDS WITH TEETH. 
345 
tachment to the jaw the base of one tooth comes in contact 
with that of the next. So sudden and extensive is this widen- 
ing of the base that at first it gave me the impression that the 
teeth were tricuspidate with the middle cusp far longer than 
the others. 
The front tooth of the four, which slopes forward from the rest, 
and is rather smaller than the others, shows little if any similar 
enlargement of its base. Of the fifth, which lies across the base 
of the foremost of the other four, only a part is visible. There 
appears to be a well-defined line at the base of the teeth along 
their junction with the jaw ; but I can offer no opinion as to the 
method of their attachment. It is of course contrary to all our 
existing notions to suppose that a jaw, such as this, armed with 
teeth, could belong to a creature so truly bird-like in most re- 
spects as the Archaeopteryx ; but assuming it to be that of a 
fish— and it has many analogies with the jaws of some species of 
fish — or of some other animals accidentally deposited in the 
very midst of the remains of that singular creature, it appears 
to me that, fragmentary as it is, its characters are sufficiently 
defined for any one well versed in the fossils of the Solenhofen 
slate to come forward and identify it. 
Up to the present time, however, I have not heard of any 
one having been able to do so, and certainly the jaws and teeth 
of the Lepidotous and Pholidophorous fishes from the same 
beds, such as I have been able to examine, all differ from this 
in some more or less important particulars. It appears to me 
also that the teeth and jaw of the Archaeopteryx slab are rather 
slighter in structure than those of fishes of corresponding size, 
though this is a point on which I would by no means insist. 
Looking at the usual dispersion of the fossils in the Solenhofen 
slates ; looking also at the general rule (to which, however, there 
are some exceptions) that the fossils in it are found singly, so 
that all the remains of a reptile or a fish upon a single slab may 
usually be assigned with some degree of confidence to a single 
individual, the chances against a single extraneous jaw being 
mixed up with the remains of the Archaeopteryx, without any 
other bones of the animal to which the jaw belonged being also 
present, are great indeed. But how enormously are the chances 
against such an occurrence increased if the jaw thus accidentally 
present is that of a species of fish or reptile hitherto unknown. 
In order to secure the best possible information on this point, 
a careful drawing was made of the little jaw and submitted to 
the illustrious Hermann von Meyer, who replied from Frankfort, 
April 4, 1863, as follows : — 
“ In Palaeontology it is difficult to judge from drawings, but 
the two supplemental objects which Mr. John Evans has suc- 
ceeded in discovering upon the Archceopteryx slab are certainly 
