[ 122 ] 
<c that at Shotover,and alfo infeveral pieces, appeared 
c< different from the others in nothing, but in the want 
tc of tubercles, and I flatter myfelf will ferve to throw 
“ no fmall light on the fubjeCt. His being not quite 
“ fo converfant with thefe cliffs as with the pit at 
<c Shotover, prevents his fpeaking of them fo parti- 
u cularly as he could wiSh.” 
The general appearance of thefe foflil bodies gives 
reafon to conjedture, that they are bones belonging to 
the head or fnout of fome animal of the fifli-kind, or 
perhaps of fome fort of lizard, alligator, or crocodile. 
The piece A , whole ffdes are a little crufhed, was 
found in Oxfordshire, together with the piece B i 
and B 2, and may probably have been part of the 
fame head : and if fo, it Should feem from the two 
rows of teeth along its middle to have been the upper 
part of the head or fnout : for fome kinds of fiShes 
have teeth in the palate or upper part of the mouth, 
but we know of none that have teeth along the mid- 
dle of the lower part : there a tongue nioft commonly 
is placed, and the piece B has an hollow or chanel 
well adapted to contain a tongue. The teeth in the 
palate of the lupus pifcis , and likewife of fome other 
fifhes, are frequently found foflil, of various fizes and 
Shapes, being what are called (very improperly) Bu~ 
fonit£. When the two pieces A and B are brought 
together, their flze, figure, and appearance, greatly 
ffrengthen the above conjecture : and ’tis worth ob- 
ferving, that the teeth are hooked inward, to prevent 
the prey when taken from efcaping. 
The piece C, found in Gloucestershire, ferves like- 
wife to confirm the fame opinion : for the toothing 
in the middle thereof almoSt proves that part to have 
been 
