246 
PROFESSOR OWEN ON THE FOSSIL MAMMALS OF AUSTRALIA. 
The pouched Mammalia show two taxonomic modifications of the anterior mandibular 
teeth : in one, several pairs of incisors intervene between the canines ; in the other, one 
pair of incisors of large size are present and no canines. The first condition characterizes 
the “ polyprotodont section,” the second the “ diprotodont section”*. The existing repre- 
sentatives of the latter group of Marsupialia are confined to the Australasian area ; some 
of the former group are American. 
In both sections there are modifications of dentition, of digestive organs, and limb- 
structures, which in an interesting degree run parallel with each other, — the arboreal 
diprotodont Phalangers and Petaurists, e. g ., with the Opossums and Phascogales, and 
the saltatory Bandicoots and Cheer opus with the Potoroos and Kangaroos ; while the 
gradatory carnivorous Polyprotodonts have no known existing diprotodont correlatives. 
But my knowledge of mammalian organization does not authorize me to assert that 
the diprotodont type of Marsupialia could not be so modified as to subserve carnivorous 
habits. I recognize no sufficient ground for the confidence that predatory dentition 
must be associated with three or more incisors antecedent to the canine, or “ by the inter- 
position of a line of incisors” between the two canines of either the upper or lower jaw. 
Dr. Falconer, in reference to the known Marsupial genera, asserts : — “ In all the 
carnivorous genera and species, fossil or recent, of which the dentition has been accu- 
rately determined, there are three or more incisors, followed by a canine, on each side 
of the jaw, above and below; and the empirically observed result is consistent with a 
rational interpretation of the arrangement, in reference to their food and the means of 
procuring it. On the other hand, in all the existing strictly phytophagous genera, there 
is only a solitary incisor (being that next the axis) on either side of the lower jaw, and 
no canine ”f. I shall presently inquire how far this alleged generalization applies to 
known existing species, premising that it can only be affirmed as bearing on the inter- 
pretation of the fossil remains of Thylacoleo and Plagiaulax, by demonstrating the inac- 
curacy of my determinations of the dentition of those extinct genera, and by resting on 
the foregone assumption that no Marsupial genus can or could be carnivorous unless it 
had the canine or caniniform tooth preceded by three or more incisors, and that “ a soli- 
tary incisor,” however shaped and associated with other teeth, must make a “ strictly 
phytophagous Marsupial.” 
My endeavours, and whatever success may have attended them, in the interpretation 
of animal structures, have depended mainly on careful avoidance of antecedent assump- 
tions of the extent of secondary modifications with which a dentition primarily fashioned 
for animal food might be associated. I leave my mind open, for example, to deduce 
consequences from observing the modifications of size, shape, and direction of the “ soli- 
tary incisor on either side of the lower jaw,” and the form, size, and number of the 
premolars, and more especially of the true molars associated therewith. To think or 
reason otherwise would be simply to argue in a circle, as thus: — “All carnassial Mar- 
supial genera have incisors as well as a canine ; ergo , no Marsupial genus with a laniari- 
* Owen’s ‘ Anatomy of Vertebrates,’ vol. iii. p. 293. f X. p. 351 ; XI. p. 434. 
