[ 213 ] 
IX. On the Fossil Mammals of Australia . — Part IV. Dentition and Mandible of Thy- 
lacoleo carnifex, with remarks on the arguments for its Herbivority. By Professor 
Owen, F.B.S. &c. 
Eeceived September 27, — Read November 17, 1870. 
Contents. Page 
1. Introduction 213 
2. Maxilla and Maxillary Teeth, Tliylacoleo 215 
3. Mandible and Mandibular Teeth, Tliylacoleo 219 
4. Photographs and Cave-specimens of Maxillary Teeth, Tliylacoleo 221 
5. Photographs and Cave- specimens of Mandible and Mandibular Teeth, Tliylacoleo 223 
6. Cave-specimens and Cast of Inferior Incisor, Tliylacoleo 226 
7. Guide to inferring function from form of Teeth 227 
8. Location of Laniaries in relation to Camivority 228 
9. Dentition of Tliylacoleo and Phascolarctos compared, and alleged correspondence considered 231 
10. Mandibular Characters of Carnivorous and Herbivorous Marsupials 233 
11. Testimony as to the native food of the Aye- aye 237 
12. Comparison of the Mandibular Condyle in Tliylacoleo , Playiaulax, and Rodentia 240 
13. Comparison of Incisor Teeth of Diprotodont Paucidentata with those of Chiromys and Ro- 
dentia 241 
1 4. Interrupted and continuous applications of Teeth, their indications in Fossils 242 
15. Work of Molars in Herbivora 244 
16. Place of Tliylacoleo and Playiaulax in the Marsupial Order 244 
17. Tendency from the general to the special in the Dentition of the Paucidentate Marsupials. . 255 
18. Relation of size to Carnivority 257 
19. Concluding remarks 261 
§ ] . In former Papers on the Fossil Mammals of Australia ( Tliylacoleo , Parts I. & II.) I 
inferred, from the size and position of the socket of the anterior tooth, from the structure 
of the root of the tooth therein implanted, and, above all, from the characters of the 
associated and completely preserved teeth, that such front tooth must have been laniari- 
forrn, i. e. subcompressed and pointed, adapted for piercing, holding, and lacerating, like 
the canine of a Carnivore*. 
To this the late laborious and experienced palaeontologist, Dr. Falconer, has objected 
that, in referring to my paper, he finds “ that the body of the tooth, of which the shape 
and direction are adduced as terms of comparison, together with the fore part of the 
symphysis, is wanting ” -j\ 
* Philosophical Transactions, 1859, p. 318 ; ib. 1866, pp. 79, 80. 
t Quarterly Journal of the Geological Society, June 1862, vol. xviii. p. 353 ; also ‘ Pala3ontological Memoirs 
MDCCCLXXI. 2 G 
