[1] Galton’s South Africa, p. 187.
[2] L. F. E. Rousseau, Anatomie comparée du Système dentaire chez l’Homme et chez les principaux Animaux, 2d ed., 1839; F. Cuvier, Des Dents des Mammifères considérées comme caractères zoologiques, 1822-25; R. Owen, Odontography, 1840-45; C. G. Giebel, Odontographie, 1855; C. S. Tomes, Manual of Dental Anatomy, Human and Comparative, 3d ed., 1889.
[3] The lower incisors of some species of Shrews are, however, said to become ankylosed to the jaw in adult age.
[4] The teeth of the extinct Dinosaurian reptile Triceratops have two distinct roots, placed transversely to the axis of the jaws.
[5] This and other questions concerning the homologies, notation, and succession of the teeth of mammals are more fully developed in two memoirs by one of the present writers:—“Remarks on the Homologies and Notation of the Teeth of the Mammalia,” in the Journal of Anatomy and Physiology, vol. iii. p. 262, 1869; and “Notes on the First or Milk Dentition of the Mammalia,” in the Trans. Odontological Society of Great Britain, 1871. See also an important memoir by Oldfield Thomas on the “Homologies and Succession of the teeth in the Dasyuridæ,” Phil. Trans. 1887, pp. 443-462.
[6] By many writers the letters indicating the different kinds of teeth are printed in capitals, as I, C, P, and M; while very frequently the symbol Pm is employed in place of p.
[7] According to Mr. G. E. Dobson there are four upper incisors in some of the Soricidæ.
[8] See for the principal modifications of the skeleton of the class, the large and beautifully illustrated Ostéographie of De Blainville, 1835-54; the section devoted to the subject in Bronn’s Klassen und Ordnungen des Thier-Reichs, by Giebel, 1874-79; and An Introduction to the Osteology of the Mammalia, by W. H. Flower, 3d ed., 1885.
[9] This and many of the following figures in this chapter are taken from Flower’s Osteology of the Mammalia.
[10] For the sake of uniformity, in all the following descriptions of the vertebral column, the long axis of the body is supposed to be in the horizontal position.
[11] The opinion has recently been expressed by Baur that bone termed radiale in Fig. 17 is really a second centrale, and that the radiale is represented by a minute bone generally known as the radial sesamoid. The mammalian scaphoid is accordingly also regarded as a second centrale. In the same communication, Dr. Baur expresses his disbelief in the existence of remnants of a prepollex and of a seventh digit in mammals and other vertebrates. (See Anat. Anzeiger, vol. iv. pp. 49-52, 1889.)
[12] On the Præpollex and Præhallux, etc., Proc. Zool. Soc. 1889, pp. 259-262.
[13] Cope and Baur consider that the astragalus corresponds only with the intermedium, and that the tibiale may exist as a distinct element.
[14] For further details of these modifications, see Flower’s “Lectures on the Comparative Anatomy of the Organs of Digestion of the Mammalia,” Medical Times and Gazette, Feb.-Dec. 1872.
[15] G. Gulliver, Proc. Zool. Soc., 1862, p. 91.
[16] The modifications of these bones are fully described by A. Doran, “Morphology of the Mammalian Ossicula auditus,” Trans. Linn. Soc. ser. 2, vol. i. pp. 371-497, pl. lviii.-lxiv. (1878).
[17] See B. H. Caldwell—“The Embryology of Monotremata and Marsupialia,” Phil. Trans. for 1887, p. 463.
[18] Proc. Acad. Nat. Sci. Philadelphia, 1881, p. 468.
[19] “Studien ueber Entwickelungeschichte der Thiere,” pt. 4, Wiesbaden, 1886.
[20] Journal of Morphology, vol. i. p. 373 (1887).
[21] For a full exposition of the present state of knowledge on this subject, see the various memoirs of Sir William Turner, also F. M. Balfour’s Treatise on Comparative Embryology, vol. ii. (1881), and J. A. Ryder in American Naturalist, vol. xxi. p. 780 (1887).
[22] Proceedings of the Royal Society of London, vol. xxviii. p. 395 (1879).
[23] “The Relations between the Theromorphous Reptiles and the Monotreme Mammalia,” Proceedings of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, vol. xxxiii. p. 471 (1885).
[24] “On the Phylogenetic Arrangement of the Sauropsida,” Journal of Morphology, vol. i. pp. 93-104 (1887).
[25] The names of the groups containing only extinct forms are printed in heavier type than those which contain species still existing.
[26] On this subject see A. Murray, Geographical Distribution of Mammals, 1866; and especially A. R. Wallace, The Geographical Distribution of Animals, 2 vols., 1876, and Island Life, 1881; also A. Heilprin, The Geographical and Geological Distribution of Animals, 1887.
[27] Distribution of Animals.
[28] Generally known, as Hyomoschus, but first described as an extinct form under the above name.
[29] The fore limb from S. Africa described as Theriodesmus, which appears to be mammalian, and may belong to Tritylodon.
[30] The subjects referred to under this heading are mostly described and figured in detail in Owen’s “Monograph of the Fossil Mammalia of the Mesozoic Formations,” Palæontographical Society’s Publications, 1871; and in various papers by Marsh, in the American Journal of Science and Arts, 1878-89. Important contributions to our knowledge of these forms have also been made by Professors Cope and Osborn, and the reader should especially consult the memoir by the latter writer on the “Structure and Affinities of the Mesozoic Mammals,” published in the Journal of the Philadelphia Academy (1888), vol. ix.
[31] The whole discussion is contained in the following memoirs: (1) H. Falconer, “Description of Two Species of the Fossil Mammalian genus Plagiaulax, from Purbeck,” Quart. Journ. Geol. Soc. vol. xiv. 1857; (2) R. Owen, art. “Palæontology,” Encyclopædia Britannica, 8th ed., 1859; (3) H. Falconer, “On the Disputed affinity of the Mammalian genus Plagiaulax,” Quart. Journ. Geol. Soc. vol. xviii. 1862; (4) R. Owen, “Monograph of the Fossil Mammalia of the Mesozoic Formation,” Palæontographical Society, 1871.
[32] Blumenbach, Voigts Magazin, vol. ii. p. 205 (1800).
[33] Proceedings of the Royal Society of London, vol. xliii. p. 353 (1888).
[34] Ibid. vol. xlvi. p. 126 (1889).
[35] Cuvier, Tableau Élémentaire d’Hist. Nat. p. 143 (1798).
[36] Gervais, Ostéographie des Monotremes, p. 43 (1877).
[37] For the detailed characters of all the genera and species of Marsupials the reader should consult the British Museum Catalogue of Marsupialia and Monotremata, by Oldfield Thomas, 1888.
[38] Except in Petaurus (Belideus) breviceps (Forbes, Proc. Zool. Soc. 1881, p. 188).
[39] Including the transitional Austro-Malayan region.
[40] Illiger, Prod. Syst. Mamm. et Aves, p. 76 (1811).
[41] Linn. Syst. Nat. Ed. 12, vol. i. p. 71 (1766).
[42] Temminck, Monographies de Mammalogie, vol. i. p. 60 (1827).
[43] F. Cuvier, Hist. Nat. des Mammifères, iv. (1837).
[44] Geoffroy, Bull. Soc. Philom. vol. i. p. 106 (1796).
[45] Temminck, Monographies de Mammalogie, vol. i. p. 56 (1827).
[46] Thomas, Ann. Mus. Genov. sér. 2, vol. iv. p. 503 (1887).
[47] Krefft, Proc. Zool. Soc. 1866, p. 434.
[48] Waterhouse, Proc. Zool. Soc. 1836, p. 69.
[49] Geoffroy, Bull. Soc. Philom. vol. iii. p. 249 (1803).
[50] Grey, in Grey’s Australia, vol. ii, p. 401 (1841).
[51] Ogilby, Proc. Zool. Soc. 1838, p. 25.
[52] Geoffroy, Ann. du Muséum, vol. ii. p. 365 (1803).
[53] Owen, Phil. Trans. 1872, p. 257.
[54] Gervais and Verraux, Proc. Zool. Soc. 1842, p. 1.
[55] Storr, Prodromus Meth. Mamm. p. 33 (1780). Syn. Phalangista, Geoffroy, Bull. Soc. Philom. vol i. p. 106 (1796).
[56] Lesson, Dict. Class. d’Hist. Nat. vol. xiii. p. 333 (1828).
[57] Ogilby, Proc. Zool. Soc. 1836, p. 26.
[58] Thomas, Cat. Marsupials Brit. Mus. p. 163 (1888).
[59] Gray, Proc. Zool. Soc. 1858, p. 109.
[60] Shaw, Naturalist’s Miscellany, vol. ii. pl. lx. (1791).
[61] M’Coy, Ann. Mag. N. H. (3) xx. p. 287 (1867).
[62] Grey, in Grey’s Australia, appendix, vol. ii. p. 407 (1841).
[63] Peters, Ann. Mus. Genov. vol. vi. p. 303 (1874).
[64] Desmarest, Nouv. Dict. d’Hist. Nat. sér. 2, vol. xxv. p. 405 (1817).
[65] Cf. W. A. Forbes, “Anatomy of the Koala,” Proc. Zool. Soc. 1881, p. 180.
[66] Blainville, Bull. Soc. Philom. 1816, p. 116.
[67] Owen, in Gervais’s Zool. et Pal. françaises, 1st ed. pt. i. p. 192 (1849-52).
[68] Ramsay, Proc. Linn. Soc. N. S. Wales, vol. i. p. 33 (1876).
[69] De Vis, Proc. Roy. Soc. Queensland, ser. 2, vol. iii. p. 8 (1888).
[70] Desmarest, Nouv. Dict. d’Hist. Nat. sér. 1, vol. xxiv. Table Méth. p. 20 (1804). Syn. Hypsiprymnus, Illiger, Prodromus Syst. Mamm. p. 79 (1811).
[71] Gray, Charlesworth’s Mag. Nat. Hist. vol. i. p. 584 (1837).
[72] Thomas, Cat. Marsup. Brit. Mus. p. 114 (1888).
[73] Garrod, Proc. Zool. Soc. 1875, p. 59.
[74] Thomas, Proc. Zool. Soc. 1886, p. 544.
[75] Schlegel and Müller, Verh. Nat. Ges. Nederland, p. 138 (1839-44).
[76] Schlegel and Müller, Verh. Nat. Ges. Nederland, p. 130 (1839-44).
[77] Gould, Monograph of Macropodidæ, pl. xiii. (1841).
[78] Grey, in Grey’s Australia, vol. ii. appendix, p. 402 (1841).
[79] Gray, Charlesworth’s Mag. Nat. Hist. vol. i. p. 583 (1837).
[80] Shaw, Naturalist’s Miscellany, vol. i. pl. xxxiii. (1790).
[81] For the characters of these species and the under-mentioned distinct genera, see Owen’s Extinct Mammals of Australia (1877), and Lydekker’s Catalogue of Fossil Mammalia in the British Museum, pt. v. (1887).
[82] Owen, Phil. Trans. 1874, p. 264.
[83] Owen, op. cit. p. 788.
[84] Owen, op. cit. p. 797.
[85] Owen, in Mitchell’s Eastern Australia, 2d ed. vol. ii. p. 362 (1838).
[86] Owen, Cat. Mamm. and Aves, Mus. R. Coll. Surgeons, p. 314 (1845).
[87] The characters of the chief groups of the Eutheria here given are, in some measure, a fuller recapitulation of those already detailed in Chapter III., pp. 83-88.
[88] The name Paratheria has been suggested for this proposed subclass.
[89] In some few Armadillos the suture between the premaxilla and maxilla passes behind the first upper tooth; but in all other known members of the order all the teeth are implanted in the maxilla.
[90] See Flower, “On the Mutual Affinities of the Animals composing the Order Edentata,” Proceedings of the Zoological Society, 1882, p. 358.
[91] An attempt has been made to represent these views by the following classification:
It may be objected to this arrangement that the present divergence between the Sloths and Anteaters is hardly sufficiently indicated by their association in one suborder.—Flower, “On the Arrangement of the Orders and Families of Mammals,” Proc. Zool. Soc. 1883, p. 178.
[92] Linn. Syst. Nat. 12th ed. vol. i. p. 50 (1766).
[93] Illiger, Prodromus Syst. Mamm. et Avium, p. 108 (1811).
[94] Burmeister, Sitzb. Ak. Berlin, vol. xxviii. p. 613 (1882).
[95] Lydekker, in Nicholson and Lydekker’s Manual of Palæontology, vol. ii. p. 1299 (1889). Originally described under the preoccupied name Cœlodon.
[96] Cuvier, Tableau Élém. d’Hist. Nat. des Animaux, p. 146 (1798).
[97] An excellent figure of this skeleton, which unfortunately was incorrectly articulated, and wanted the greater part of the tail, was published by Pander and D’Alton in 1821, and has been frequently reproduced in subsequent works.
[98] See E. D. Cape, Amer. Naturalist, vol. xxiii. p. 152 (1889).
[99] Linn. Syst. Nat. 12th ed. vol. i. p. 51 (1766).
[100] Professor Cope has recently come to the conclusion that there are three species; but further evidence is required in support of this view.
[101] Gray, Annals of Philosophy, new series, vol. x. p. 343 (1825).
[102] Gray, Annals of Philosophy, new series, vol. x. p. 343 (1825).
[103] Harlan, Ann. New York Lyceum Nat. Hist. vol. i. p. 237 (1824).—Amended from Chiamyphorus.
[104] Linn. Syst. Nat., 12th ed. vol. i. p. 54 (1766).
[105] Wagler, Syst. Amphibien, etc., p. 36 (1830).
[106] F. Cuvier, Hist. Nat. des Mammifères (1822).—Priodontes.
[107] Illiger, Prodromus Syst. Mamm. et Avium, p. 111 (1811).
[108] Lesson, Man. de Mammalogie, p. 309 (1827); ex. F. Cuvier, Tatusie.
[109] A single imperfect skin, brought from the province of Ceara in Brazil, indicates a very remarkable form of Armadillo, named by A. Milne-Edwards Scleropleura brunetti (Ann. Sc. Nat. xvi. p. 8, 1872). The dermal scutes are said to be much less developed than in other members of the family, and confined to the sides, all the median portion of the back being clothed with a flexible hairy skin. The head is broad and short, the ears small and far apart. The tail is long, and almost entirely devoid of scutes. The feet are unknown.
[110] Linn. Syst. Nat. 12th ed. vol. i. p. 52 (1766).
[111] Mammalian Descent, p. 95.
[112] Mammalian Descent, p. 99.
[113] Forsyth-Major, Comptes Rendus, vol. cvii. p. 1180 (1888).
[114] Geoffroy, Décade Philosophique, 1795 (teste Agassiz).
[115] Proceedings of the Royal Society; vol. xlvii. p. 246 (1890).
[116] Storr, Prodromus Meth. Mamm. p. 41 (1780).
[117] Zool. Jahrbuch, vol. i. p. 1 (1886).
[118] Illiger, Prodromus Syst. Mamm. et Avium, p. 140 (1811).
[119] Illiger, Prodromus Syst. Mamm. et Avium, p. 141 (1811).—Amended from Rytina.
[120] Nordenskiöld, during his voyage in the Vega, obtained some information from the natives of Behring Island which led him to believe that a few individuals may have survived to a much later date, even to 1854; but this conclusion is disputed by later writers.
[121] Kaup, Neues Jahrbuch, 1838, pp. 319 and 536.
[122] This is an important distinction from the Sirenia, but a character common to nearly all other mammals. It is doubtful whether there is any foundation for the statement that these epiphyses remain ununited for an exceptionally long period in the Cetacea.
[123] A character repeated in some of the Seals.
[124] These have been described in detail by Professor Struthers in the Journal of Anatomy and Physiology, 1881.
[125] The ankylosed mass of cervical vertebræ, on which the genus Palæocetus was established, was regarded by its describer as having probably come from the Kimeridge Clay, but the mineral condition of the specimen points to the Red Crag as the place of origin.
[126] There is much resemblance in the larynx of the Hippopotamus, but none in that of the Seal, to the same organ in the Cetacea.
[127] German Meerschwein, whence the French Marsouin. “Porpoise” is said to be derived from “Porc-poisson.”
[128] Icel. hvalr; Dan. and Swed. hval; Anglo-Saxon hwæl; Germ. wal, walfisch. The meaning apparently is “roller,” the word being closely allied to “wheel” (Skeat).
[129] These were discovered in the Greenland Whale by Geoffroy St. Hilaire, whose observations were confirmed and extended to other genera by Eschricht. They have been very fully described in Balænoptera rostrata by Julin (Archives de Biologie, i. 1880).
[130] For the structure of whalebone see Hunter, “Observations on the Structure and Economy of Whales,” Phil. Trans. 1787; Eschricht and Reinhardt, On the Greenland Right Whale, English translation by the Ray Society, 1866, pp. 67-78; and Sir W. Turner, in Trans. Roy. Soc. Edin. 1870.
[131] Linn. Syst. Nat. 12th ed. vol. i. p. 105 (1766).
[132] Gray, Suppl. Cat. Seals and Whales in Brit. Mus. p. 39 (1871).
[133] Cope, Proc. Ac. Nat. Sci. Philad. 1869, p. 15.
[134] Gray, Zoology of Erebus and Terror, p. 16 (1846).
[135] See J. Struthers, “On the Anatomy of Megaptera longimana,” Journ. Anatomy and Physiology, 1887-89.
[136] Lacépède, “Table des Ordres,” Hist. Nat. des Cétacés, p. xxxvi. (1804).
[137] See P. J. Van Beneden, “Histoire Naturelles des Balénoptères,” Mém. Acad. Belgique, xli. 1887.
[138] In a recent memoir Professor D’Arcy Thompson has brought forward some arguments to show that the Zeuglodonts have no direct affinities with the Cetacea, but have on the other hand the strongest possible relation with the Pinnipede Carnivora. “On the Systematic position of Zeuglodon,” Studies from the Museum of Zoology, Dundee, vol. i. No. 9, 1890.
[139] An appearance in one specimen has been described by C. G. Carus as indicating a vertical succession of the teeth, but the evidence upon which this rests is by no means satisfactory, and appears to admit of another explanation.
[140] A mutilated humerus of Zeuglodon cetoides has given rise to many conjectures, appearing to some anatomists to indicate seal-like freedom of motion at the elbow-joint, while to others its characters appear to be truly Cetacean.
[141] See Trans. Geol. Soc. ser. 2, vol. vi. p. 67.
[142] Linn. Syst. Nat. 12th ed. vol. i. p. 107 (1766).
[143] Gray, Zoology of Erebus and Terror, p. 22 (1846). Usually spelt Kogia.
[144] Lacépède, “Table des Ordres,” Hist. Nat. des Cétacés, p. xliv. (1804).
[145] See the figures in the Proc. Zool. Soc. 1882, pp. 728, 729.
[146] Cuvier, Ossemens Fossiles, 2d ed. vol. v. p. 352 (1823).
[147] Gervais, Ann. Sci. Nat. ser. 3, vol. xiv. p. 16 (1850). For the very complicated synonymy of this genus, see Trans. Zool. Soc. vol. viii. p. 208.
[148] Duvernoy, Ann. Sci. Nat.-Zoologie, sér. 3, vol. xv. p. 41 (1851).