SARCOPHILUS. 
447 
umntts of authors, from the other Dasyuri, but I presume 
they are derived from the proportions of the animal, which 
are more bulky than in other Dasyuri, and perhaps from the 
comparatively short tail. The form of the skull, and some 
slight modifications observable in the structure of the teeth, 
no doubt were also taken into consideration. With regard 
to the latter, the following points struck me upon comparing 
the teeth of D. ursinus with those of D. maculatus. The 
premolars, owing to the shortness of the muzzle in D. ursinm , 
are crowded together, whilst in Dasyurus proper they are 
somewhat isolated, and they differ, moreover, in having the 
transverse diameter as great as the longitudinal; the inner 
lobe of the upper true molar teeth is less developed, and the 
anterior lohe is smaller in proportion to the hinder one: in 
the foremost true molar this lohe presents hut one point; in 
the second it is partially divided, and in the third true molar 
the anterior lohe is distictly divided The hindermost of 
the two external lobes differs from the corresponding lohe 
in the true molar of D . maculatus , in being considerably 
compressed, and the small tubercle, which, in the typical 
Dasyuri, is situated on the outer side of the tooth, and about 
midway between the anterior and posterior angles, is here 
brought near the mesial tubercle : in the hindermost molar, 
the tubercle in question is obliterated, as is the case in the 
molars of the Thylacinus. These observations refer only to 
the three foremost of the upper true molars; the hindermost 
molar is a narrow, transverse, and very simple tooth. The true 
molars of the lower jaw differ in having the posterior lobe, or 
heel, less developed, and these teeth want the inner tubercle, 
which is found midway between the extremities of the tooth 
of Dasyurus viverrinus , D. Maugei , &c. 
