Mr. Ov/en on Mammalian Remains, 191 XXI. — Description of the Mammalian Remains found at Kyson in Suffolk, mentioned in the preceding Notice, By Richard Owen, Esq., F.R.S., &c. 1. Molar of a Macacus, (Fig. 1.) This tooth was one of the first of the mammiferous remains from the London clay formation at Kyson which was sub-mitted to my examination by Mr. Lyell, and the one which after a cursory comparison I observed to present a consider-able resemblance with the molar of an opossum. I should not however have presumed to have published a statement of its affinity to, much less its identity with, the genus Didelphys, without testing the fossil by a more extended and rigorous comparison. This I have lately undertaken with a view to the present communication, and the result has been to identify the tooth as a second molar, left side, lower jaw of a Macacus (the tooth which corresponds with the second ^ bicuspis' in Human Ana-tomy.) (See fig. 1.) The crown pre-Fig.i. sents four tubercles, arranged in two transverse pairs, the anterior pair be-ing the most distinctly developed, and a b rising the highest (fig. a.) ; there is also a very small ridge or rudimental talon at the anterior and another at the posterior side of the crown ; the latter is placed between and connects together the two posterior tubercles. The fangs are two, strong and divergent; the anterior one has been broken off. The grinding surface of the tooth presents two depressions, a small one in front of the anterior pair of tubercles, and a larger one between the two pairs of tubercles. (Fig. 1, b.) The tooth has evidently belonged to an old individual, for the tubercles are worn and the posterior concavity is smoothed and deepened by attrition. It differs from the corresponding tooth of a recent Macacus of the same size in having a slight ridge along the base of the anterior part of the crown, and in being a little narrower from side to side, and the same cha-racters distinguish the posterior molar of the fossil Macacus described by me in the September number of the ^ Magazine of Natural History' (1839). As, moreover, the present fossil
BioStor
