228 
PEOFESSOE OWEN ON THE FOSSIL MAMMALS OF AUSTEALIA. 
he refers. It is certain that the indications of the mutilated parts of my original speci- 
mens have not proved “ illusory.” 
But such indications were not the sole grounds of my conclusions ; I was also guided 
by a principle. It is that laid down by Cuvier in the van of his immortal work of 
Restoration of the extinct Mammals of the Paris Basin. 
The aberrations of some contemporary labourers in this field show that it will bear 
repetition : — “ La premiere chose a faire dans l’etude d’un animal fossile est de recon- 
noitre la forme de ses dents molaires ; on determine par-la s’il est carnivore ou herbivore”*. 
These test-teeth were fortunately entire in the upper jaw of the skull of Thylacoleo f, 
and in the cast of the lower jaw originally described J. 
The major part of .the molar series was represented by one large and most efficient 
carnassial, followed by a single small tubercular above, which was opposed to a semi- 
tubercular molar and a second more minute tubercular tooth below. 
Here was no molar machinery for the mastication of vegetable food, but a maximized 
modification of the teeth for the division of fieshy fibre, and so much of the tubercular 
form added for the final crush or squeeze of gristle or other tough part escaping the 
shears, as exists in the most carnivorous of the placental mammals. 
§ 8. Location of Laniaries. — From these facts, with faith in the Cuvierian principle, 
1 inferred a concomitancy of laniary teeth at the fore part of the jaw “ to pierce, retain, 
and kill ’ ’ § the prey, whether such laniaries held the relative position to a suture tech- 
nically determining them to be “ incisors ” or “ canines.” It is now determined that these 
laniaries are, as was inferred in my Second Paper ||, incisors. A co-adapted pair at the 
fore part of the lower jaw were opposed to a slightly separated pair in the upper jaw. 
To this demonstration applies the following objection against the inference as to 
function : — 
“ Throughout the Mammalia , where teeth perform the functions of canines to ‘ pierce, 
retain, and kill,’ they are held well apart through the interposition of a line of incisors — 
the end being obvious : the points of penetration are doubled, the grasp is strengthened 
by widening the base, and the dilacerating and killing powers are multiplied ”^[. 
To this I reply that, were a pair of bayonets cemented side by side and the forces of 
two brawny arms concentrated on the thrust, their perforating and lethal power would 
be increased. I fail to see how such “ collateral arrangement in the axis ” of the piercing 
force “would place them at a disadvantage to the end to be attained ”**. 
Dr. Falconer admits that “a Rat when seized can inflict a smart wound on the hand”ff. 
I can add experience of loss of young poultry showing by the wounds on their legs how 
they had been brought down from the perch, and by wounds on the neck how they had 
* Becherches sur les Ossemens Fossiles, 4to, tom. iii. (1822) p. 1. 
t Philosophical Transactions, 1859, Plate xi. figs. 1 & 2. + Id. ib. fig. 3. 
§ Owen’s ‘ Palaeontology,’ 8vo, 1860, p. 320. 
|| Philosophical Transactions, 1866, p. 80. 
H X. p. 352 ; XI. p. 435. ** Id. ib. 
ft Id. ib. 
