"W In GHSQ IN V JLWT-I VTI
| –
） -----
|-
'I GILYT， I+691 “AI （IoA ſao Nºſios Tvºrni v N


.
-st
º*.
.
Museum Library
JUN 29 1939
The La Plata Museum.
S many of our readers are probably aware, when the city of
Buenos Aires was made the capital of the Argentine Republic
in the year 1880, it was at the same time considered advisable that
the province of this name should have a capital of its own. Accor-
dingly, two years later, the city of La Plata was founded on a site
Some thirty-five miles lower down the river than the metropolis, and
inaugurated as the provincial capital of Buenos Aires. One
of the reasons for selecting a site so near to the metropolis appears
to have been the necessity of having a port where vessels of the
largest tonnage could come alongside the wharves; and one of the
first proceedings was to construct a magnificent ship-canal from the
river, terminating at a spot known as the Ensenada, within easy
distance of the centre of the new city, and provided with accommo-
dation for ocean steamers of almost any dimensions. With charac-
teristic Transatlantic energy, the planning and building of the future
capital was pushed on apace; and there soon arose on the site of
what had recently been a mere estancia, or cattle-farm, a city of lordly
palaces and stately squares, which has been not inaptly designated
the “enchanted city.” While the “boom " which at that time was at
its zenith in Argentina lasted, La Plata bid fair to become a rival of
the metropolis, and population and building vied with each other in
trying to get ahead. Unfortunately, these rosy prospects were but
short-lived, and at the present time the princely palaces and broad
boulevards of the “enchanted city” are, except during the sittings
of the Provincial Parliament, well-nigh deserted; and instead of
resounding with the rattle of carriages and the tramp of thronging
multitudes, the paved streets are silent, deserted, and grass-grown.
Whether this state of comparative desertion and stagnation is
likely to be permanent, or whether it is but the chrysalis-stage pre-
paratory to the advent of a period of prosperity and progress, it
behoves us not to enquire in these pages. There is, however, within
the limits of La Plata, a noble building which must for ever render
celebrated the name of that city throughout the length and breadth
r of the scientific world. This building, I need hardly say, is the
Museum, which owes its foundation and present prosperity solely to
the indomitable energy and perseverance of its able and accomplished
Director, Dr. F. P. Moreno. -
[ 2 J
Recognising the importance of a proper appreciation of science
in a country so richly endowed with palaeontological treasures,
Dr. Moreno lost no time in impressing on the Provincial Government
the necessity of providing funds for the erection of a Museum which
should be worthy of the palatial surroundings of the enchanted city;
and, fortunately for science, his efforts were ere long crowned with
the success they so well merited. Only two years after the inaugura-
tion of La Plata as a city—namely, in 1884—Government sanction
was obtained for the erection of the Museum; and in 1889 the
imposing edifice represented in our first illustration was practically
complete. The building, we may state, is situated on the Ensenada,
or river-side of the outskirts of the city, standing in a park, amid
splendid avenues and groves of tall eucalyptus and other trees, which,
in the course of a few years, will form a veritable forest. Since our
excellent illustration (for which, like the others in this notice, we are
indebted to Dr. Moreno) gives such a good general idea of the
external appearance of the Museum, it will not be necessary to say
much on this point; neither shall we spend much time on a description
of the interior. We may mention, however, that after passing under
the well-proportioned Grecian portico, the visitor, on entering the
building, finds himself in a rotunda, with a gallery and roof supported
by two tiers of iron columns, and lighted above by a large skylight :
its walls being decorated with frescoes representing the scenery, native
life, and some of the wonderful extinct mammals of Argentina. From
this rotunda, which occupies the centre of the front of the building,
there diverge, on the ground floor, two galleries on opposite sides,
which, after running a straight course for some distance, curve round
so as to form a pair of apses at the two extremities, which are again
connected by a straight gallery running parallel to the one in front,
both back and front galleries being connected by cross-galleries and
chambers, so that the whole edifice forms a continuous block of
building. The upper floor, which does not extend over the two
terminal apses, contains the apartments of the Director and the
Secretariat, together with the library, the art-gallery, and some
portions of the ethnological section. On the ground-floor the central
chambers are, in the main, devoted to anthropology and ethnology;
while the galleries on the right of the entrance contain the geological
and palaeontological exhibits, and those on the opposite side the
animals of the present epoch. The central hall, on the further side
of the building opposite the rotunda, is, however, consecrated to the
mastodons and sub-fossil cetaceans.
We might, of course, elaborate to any extent the description of
the Museum itself, but since this is a matter of comparatively small
interest, we proceed at once to the consideration of its contents.
And here we may state at the outset that the most marvellous thing
connected with this wonderful institution is the circumstance that
nearly the whole of its unrivalled treasures have been collected within
[ 3 ]
the last few years by the untiring energy of its Director. Probably
many persons in England are under the impression that the La Plata
Museum and the Buenos Aires Museum (of which the palaeontological
contents were so admirably described by its late Director, Dr.
Hermann Burmeister) are one and the same thing. This, however,
is far from being the case, the Buenos Aires Museum being the
. National institution, while the La Plata Museum pertains to the pro-
vince only. Without entering into the question whether or no the
establishment of two such institutions within forty miles of one
another was strictly advisable in the interests of science, we may
state that at the foundation of the La Plata Museum, the National
Museum at Buenos Aires was left untouched, and the collection of
the former started almost de novo. And we may add, in no disparage-
ment to the elder institution—which must always claim the prestige
of containing the whole of Burmeister's types—that the younger sister
has shot far ahead, so far as palaeontological treasures are concerned.
So far as we can gather from an account published by the
Director in 1890, it would appear that the principal aim of the
Museum is to illustrate the whole fauna—both recent and fossil—of
the Argentine Republic. It has, however, been recognised that it
would be impossible to study the unrivalled series of fossil mammals
without the opportunity of comparison with the skeletons of the living
members of the same class from all parts of the world ; and the
Director has accordingly paid special attention to the acquisition of a
representative series of specimens of mammalian osteology; our
Second plate showing the gallery where the greater number of
these skeletons are exhibited. Among those of more than ordinary
interest are the fine series of skeletons of South American Cetaceans,
most of which have been obtained from the estuary of the Rio de la
Plata and the coast of Patagonia, where several of them have been
found stranded. The series includes skeletons of Balaenoptera,
Megaptera, Hyperoödon, and Orca, most of which have been referred
to species distinct from those of the northern hemisphere; and among
these the splendid skeleton of a member of the first-named genus,
Seen suspended on the left side of our plate, is remarkable for its
large size, the total length being upwards of 22% metres. Of
still wider interest is the skeleton of an individual of Neobalaena
marginata—a cetacean which we believe to have been hitherto
recorded only from the South Seas. With the bare mention that
a large number of both native and foreign animals are represented
by stuffed specimens, we must bring to a close these few remarks
relating to the recent section of the Museum, and proceed to the
palaejntological department, which is the one from which the insti-
tution will derive a world-wide celebrity.
Before setting out on my recent visit to La Plata, I had been
prepared by the glowing accounts sent to me by the Director, as well
as from the published writings of other palaeontologists, to find the
| 4 |
Museum exceedingly rich in the fossil Vertebrates of Argentina; but on
my arrival the reality far exceeded my most eager expectations, and
during my first walk through the seemingly endless galleries of the
Museum I was absolutely lost in astonishment and admiration at the
number and beauty of its palaeontological treasures. We find, for
instance, in one of the galleries devoted to the display of the
mammalian remains from the Pampean beds and the somewhat
older formations of Monte Hermoso, near Bahia Blanca, two com-
plete skeletons of Toxodon, while another of Macrauchenia lacks only
a few of the hinder trunk-vertebrae. The latter genus is also repre-
sented by three complete mounted limbs; while around the walls
are ranged, in almost endless number, skulls, jaws, teeth, and limb-
bones of Toxodon, Typotherium, and Macrauchenia, belonging to indi-
viduals of all ages and sizes. Perhaps, however, the greatest treasures
of this striking gallery are the skull of that remarkable Toxodont
which has been described as Trigodon, but should properly be known
as Toxodontotherium, and the skull and jaws of the allied Zotodon ; the
former being from the Monte Hermoso deposits, while the latter
comes from distant Catamarca. It must be added that while one of
the skeletons of Toxodon is formed from the bones of a single individual,
the second has been completed from the remains of two animals.
And here I may say a word in praise of the admirable manner in
which all the skeletons have been mounted and the broken specimens
restored by Señor Giacomo Pozzi, the Articulator of the Museum.
At the present time the whole of the invaluable series of mounted
fossil skeletons are arranged along the middle of the galleries without
any kind of protection from injury. Since the palaeontological section
of the Museum is not yet thrown open to the general public, this
unprotected state of the specimens does not lead to much harm, but
I may venture to express the hope that when the whole Museum is
opened the Government will be fully aware of the priceless value and
world-wide interest of these unique specimens, and the necessary
steps taken for providing suitable cases for their protection.
Leaving the Toxodont gallery (which is seen in the background
on the right side of our third illustration) we pass on to a large hall
containing the remains of Megatherium. Here we find one entire
skeleton of this giant ground-sloth, while facing it is the trunk and
pelvis of a second, with the greater part of the fore-limbs attached.
Several mounted specimens of limbs and other portions of the skeleton
occupy the centre of this chamber; and in the wall-cases are arranged
numerous detached bones and some magnificent specimens of the
skull, one of the latter being noteworthy on account of its enormous
size. In the next gallery we come to a magnificent series of mounted
skeletons of the Mylodons and their allies, the more or less nearly
complete specimens being six in number (including one of Scelido-
therium), while there is the greater part of the trunk of a seventh.
These mounted specimens range in size from the gigantic Mylodon
*
| 5 ||
armatus, which approaches Megatherium in bulk, and is characterised
by its enormously expanded muzzle and tusk-like anterior teeth, to the
comparatively small Scelidotherium leptocephalum, which is not very much
superior to a tapir in size. In the surrounding wall-cases are displayed
an almost endless array of skulls, limb-bones, and vertebrae, many of
which are associated. Although all the mounted specimens are from
the Pampean formation, some of the wall-cases contain examples of
the skulls and bones of Scelidotherium from the somewhat older deposits
of Monte Hermoso, near Bahia Blanca. These remains indicate
Species of much smaller dimensions than those from the Pampean,
and thus serve to illustrate the general decrease in the bodily size of
the members of the various groups of mammals as we descend
from the Pampean beds through the Monte Hermoso deposits to the
Santa Cruz beds of Patagonia. This decrease is displayed not only
among the Mylodonts, but likewise in the Glyptodonts, and the
Macrauchenias, as well as in some other Ungulates. For instance,
while the Pampean Mylodonts include species equal to the largest
rhinoceros in size, the Monte Hermoso Scelidotherium was smaller
then a tapir, while Eucholarops of the Santa Cruz beds was not more
than a yard in length, although closely allied to Mylodon. Again,
among the Glyptodonts, we notice that some at least of the represen-
tatives of the genera Glyptodon and Daedicurus from Monte Hermoso
wereiconsiderably inferior in size to their Pampean successors, while
when we reach the Santa Cruz beds we meet with mere dwarfs, as
exemplified by the genus Propalaehoplophorus, of which there is a
beautifully-preserved skeleton and carapace in the Museum.
Reverting to the Pampean Mylodonts, I may mention that,
although the time at my disposal did not admit of my undertaking a
detailed survey of any of the Edentates, yet I have little doubt that, if
this were done, the number of nominal species in this particular
group might be considerably reduced. My opinion has already been
expressed elsewhere as to the inadvisability of subdividing the true
Mylodonts into separate genera, such as Lestodon, Pseudolestodon, and
Grypotherium ; while the proposal to split up the group of Ground-
Sloths into several families, instead of including the whole in the
Megatheriidae, is not likely to commend itself to English zoologists.
Perhaps the most striking display in the whole Museum is the
magnificent series of the remains of Glyptodonts, which are exhibited
in one half of the gallery containing the Mylodonts. Here we see
not only a fine array of specimens of the carapace and tail-shield,
with or without the skull and limbs attached; but likewise a number
of entire skeletons without the dermal ossifications. These specimens
comprise examples of the genera Glyptodon, Panochthus, Daºdicurus,
and the one generally denominated Hoplophorus; and serve to
show conclusively that the original Owenian restoration of Glypto-
don was incorrect, the terminal tube of the caudal sheath of an
Hoplophorus having been attached to the carapace of a Glyptodon,
| 6 J
May we accordingly venture to suggest to the authorities of
the Royal College of Surgeons that the specimen in their
Museum thus anomalously restored might now be advantageously
dismounted, since in its present state it merely tends to perpetuate
an accidental error 2 Marvellous as are all the Glyptodonts, the
most astounding monster in the whole series is undoubtedly the
one denominated Daedicurus. The total length of this monstrous
skeleton, as it is now mounted, is upwards of II feet 8 inches
measured in a straight line, while the carapace measures Io feet
4 inches across the highest part of the back, and the length of the
massive club-like terminal tube of the caudal sheath is upwards of
3 feet II inches. Since, so far as I am aware, there is nothing
approaching to a complete skeleton of this strange creature in any
European Museum, my readers will probably pardon me if I enter
into a few details of its structure. It will be observed, in the first
place, that the carapace is remarkable for its curiously hump-backed
contour, in which respect it differs very markedly from the regularly
egg-shaped shell of Glyptodon ; while it is further distinguished by
the absence of the bold conical bosses with which the periphery of the
latter is ornamented. Then, again, there is a marked difference in
regard to the structure of the individual plates of which the carapace
is composed ; for whereas in Glyptodon these are polygonal, with a
rosette-shaped pattern formed by the impressions of the edges of the
overlying horny shields, in the present form they are oblong plates of
bone, with a smooth external surface, devoid of the impressions of
horny shields, but severally perforated by from one to five large
circular holes, through which quill-like bristles were doubtless pro-
truded during life. The tail was protected for the first third of its
length by eleven enormous bony hoops, each formed by a single ring
of plates similar to those of the carapace, but two of which not
unfrequently coalesce, the circumference of these hoops rapidly
decreasing from the base of the tail towards its extremity. The
terminal two-thirds of the tail are formed by the well-known club-like
tube so frequently exhibited in European Museums. At its flattened
and expanded extremity, this tremendous club bears a number of
roughened, depressed, disc-like facets of an oval contour, which
during life must evidently have given support to huge horny spines,
probably not unlike the horns of a rhinoceros. The whole animal
must accordingly have bristled with horns and quills, looking not
unlike some giant porcupine. In the somewhat smaller species from
Monte Hermoso, there are more of the disc-like surfaces on the tube
of the tail, which also differs from that of the Pampean species by
being less expanded at the end and by the presence of a number of
flat oval plates on the upper surface. The two imperfect specimens
of the carapace of the species of this genus from Monte Hermoso in
the collection of the Museum are remarkable for having a crater-like
elevation with a central perforation immediately over the point of
{s



[ 7 J
attachment of the pelvis. The occurrence of this peculiarity in two
examples shows that this feature cannot be an abnormality; but,
unless (as Dr. Moreno thinks) it be glandular, I am quite at a loss to
guess its rise or object. The skull in this genus has a straight profile
from the occiput to the tip of the nasal bones, in consequence of
which the oblong aperture of the nose is of great vertical height.
In marked contrast to Daedicurus are the plates of the carapace
in the allied genus Panochthus, which, although oblong in form, have a
peculiarly roughened and particular external surface, without perfora-
tions for bristles. Occasionally, however, specimens are found
showing the impress of horny shields arranged in a rosette-like
pattern somewhat after the manner obtaining in Glyptodon. The tail
of Panochthus differed from that of Daedicurus in that the terminal tube
was less flattened, and not expanded, while it was covered with
granules interspersed with disk-like surfaces, which were prominent
instead of depressed, and thus evidently bore a different type of
spine. More striking is the remarkable difference in the form of the
skull, which had a highly vaulted profile, narrow, oblique nostrils,
and an enormous descending process to the zygomatic arch. One
specimen of the skull has its dermal covering of bone still preserved;
each plate consisting of a smooth central disc surrounded by granular
bone. Of this gigantic creature, which rivalled Daºdicurus in bulk,
although with a smaller tail, the Museum possesses in addition to
several unmounted specimens, one entire carapace, three complete
mounted skeletons, exclusive of the carapace, but with the terminal
tail-tube, another lacking the tail, as well as a portion of a fifth.
In addition to the peculiarities in the structure of the component
bony plates of the carapace already referred to, Glyptodon differs from
both the genera above-mentioned by the form of the tail-sheath,
which is composed of a number of rings, gradually decreasing in
diameter, and ornamented with a series of conical knobs, the extremity
consisting of a short cone similarly decorated; the similarity of this
tail-sheath to that of the extinct Australian tortoise Miolania being
not a little remarkable. The skull of this genus has neither the
straight profile of Daºdicurus nor the convex one of Panochthus, but
the frontal and parietal planes meet one another at an obtuse
angle, thus causing the nasal aperture to be wider than long
One skull from the Pampean and a second from Monte Hermoso
have the bony dermal shield preserved, and show that it was com-
posed of small juxtaposed plates, which become larger and imbricating
on the occiput. Of the Pampean forms, which apparently belong
to two species, the mounted series in the Museum comprises two
skeletons and nearly a score of more or less nearly complete carapaces.
There is also a fine series of the remains of the smaller species from
Monte Hermoso.
In the genus which we may provisionally allude to under the
name of Hoplophorus, the skull, as is well shown in a beautiful
| 8 ||
exampla of the entire skeleton, is very different from that of all the
allied genera, its chief peculiarity being the curiously-incurved form
of the nasal bones, and the consequent involution of the nostrils. The
head-shield was long, curved, and smooth, with the largest plates
posteriorly. Three specimens of the carapace of this genus are
mounted in the gallery; one of these being associated with the head-
shield and tail-sheath. The species of this genus from the Monte
Hermoso beds appear to have been fully as large as their Pampean
representative.
Although I have at present had no opportunity of going into the
question of the number of species of Glyptodonts represented in
the Pampean formation, I have not the least hesitation in saying that
a large proportion of those named on the evidence of specimens of
the terminal tail-tube or fragments of the carapace will be found
invalid. The same is doubtless true with regard to several of the
so-called genera founded on remains from the older formations of
Southern Argentina. Although it is not my intention to enter here
into the consideration of the Glyptodonts of the Santa Cruz beds of
Patagonia, I may mention that one of the greatest treasures of
the Museum is the entire skeleton and greater portion of the carapace
of the dwarf Propalaehoplophorus, to which incidental allusion has
already been made. As shown both by the conformation of the skull
and tail-sheath, these dwarf Glyptodonts were much more nearly
allied to Glyptodon than to either of the other Pampean genera, all the
latter being probably, therefore, more specialised types of later origin.
Although in the Pampean formation the short-snouted Glypto-
donts appear to have been the dominant types of the Loricate Eden-
tates, it must not be inferred that the long-snouted Armadillos were
absent. While some of these forms found in the deposits in question
were more or less closely allied to, or even identical with, their living
cousins, others, like Eutatus, were of much larger size, and differed by
having the whole carapace formed of movable bands. Still larger
was a recently-discovered armadillo, for which the name Dasypotherium
has been proposed ; the skull of this giant measuring upwards of
Io; inches in length. Remains of the existing genus Dasypus are not
uncommon in the Pampean, and the Museum possesses some beautiful
examples from Monte Hermoso, one of which shows both the skull
and carapace. I may mention here that a species of Dasypus allied to the
existing D. minimus (which it has been recently proposed to separate
generically as Začdius) occur in the Santa Cruz beds; a fact which
has an important, bearing on the geological age of the latter.
Before leaving the mammals of the Pampean beds, I must not
omit to mention the fine series of equine remains contained in the
Museum; although in regard to one or two species, the La Plata
collection is inferior to that of the Buenos Aires Museum. Among
the more notable specimens, I may refer to a skeleton of an Equus,
which has been assigned by Señor Ameghino to a so-called species
[ 9 |
which he terms E. recţidens, but which, like the other specimens so-
named, I see no reason for separating from E. curvidens of Owen.
Although possessing no complete skulls, like those in the Buenos
Aires collection, the La Plata Museum also contains a fine series of
the remains of those horses which have been generically separated
under the name of Hippidium. Hitherto I have not considered this
separation justifiable, but from the study of the actual specimens, I
am now convinced that it will be convenient to regard the extreme
backward elongation of the nasal slits characterising these extinct
horses as a feature of generic value. And here I may mention an
instance of that want of appreciation of differences due solely to
individual peculiarities and variation in age which unfortunately cha-
racterises so much of the palaeontological work of Ameghino. On the
evidence of a single lower equine molar from the Parana, that gentleman
proposed to establish a genus stated to differ from other Equidae by
the almost total absence of folds of enamel in the cheek-teeth, for
which the name of Hipphaplus was suggested. As a matter of fact,
this tooth is nothing more than an extremely worn molar of Hippidium,
as is conclusively proved by a large series of Pampean specimens in
the Museum, which exhibit a complete transition from the unused to
the much-worn type. To make matters worse, when the error was
pointed out by Burmeister, the founder of the so-called genus
deliberately set to work to justify his own views, instead of frankly
acknowledging his error. The existence of a genus closely allied to
Equus in the Parana beds, which are set down as of Lower Oligocene
age, would not, however, by any means have suited the views of the
Argentine palaeontologist, and hence Hipphaplus must be maintained
at all hazards !
The third genus of South American equines is represented by a
very remarkable skull recently discovered in the Pampean deposits
on the coast of the province of Buenos Aires, and first described by
Dr. Moreno under the name of Onohippidium. While agreeing with
the skull of Hippidium in the extreme elongation of the nasal slits, this
specimen is distinguished by the presence of an enormous lachrymal
fossa of an oblong form and of great depth. Although it is certain
this fossa must have contained a large lachrymal gland, its size is
much greater than in any other mammal, either living or extinct,
with which I am acquainted. The cheek-teeth were of the general
type of those of Hippidium.
The above are some of the most noteworthy of the fossil mammals
in the La Plata Museum from the Pampean beds and the some-
what older deposits of the Parana and Monte Hermosa; and I now
pass on to the consideration of a few of the more interesting types
from the still older Patagonian beds. Putting aside the Edentates,
which l had no time to examine in detail, my observations will be in
the main confined to the Ungulates, of which I made a special study.
The most abundant, and at the same time one of the most interesting,
[ IO |
of these early hoofed mammals is the one to which Owen applied
the name of Nesodon, this genus being represented in the Museum by
a vast series of remains, including many perfect skulls, as well as
jaws, teeth, and limb-bones. Allied in many respects to Toxodon,
these Ungulates differed by the closer approximation of their cheek-
teeth to the Perissodactyle type of structure; the name of the genus
being derived from a well-marked island-like lobe found on the inner
side of the upper molars. There are likewise important differences
in the conformation of the cutting-teeth, and also in the structure of
the skeleton in general, which in many respects is much less
specialised than that of the allied Pampean genus. Moreover, all
the three species of Nesodon which I can alone recognise, were vastly
inferior in size to the gigantic Toxodon, the smallest of the three
being not much larger than a sheep. Hitherto, not much attention
has been paid to the limb-bones of this genus; but I have been
fortunate enough to identify not only the “long ” bones, but likewise
the calcaneum and astragalus, and thus to confirm the presumed close
relationship of Nesodon to Toxodon."
As our palaeontological readers are probably aware, Owen
described two species of the genus Nesodon, together with a third one
which has been subsequently ascertained to belong to a totally
different type of Ungulate. One of these two species (N. imbricatus)
was an animal approaching the dimensions of a small rhinoceros,
while the second (N. ovinus) was, as already said, not very greatly
larger than a sheep. Between these two extremes I find an
intermediate form which must apparently be recognised as a third
species.
Having two imperfectly-known named species of a genus from a
particular formation, one would naturally have thought that the
object of the palaeontologist would be to endeavour to complete our
knowledge of those two species, and to hesitate to name new species
(not to mention genera) from remains of the same group of animals
from the beds in question, without the clearest possible evidence of
their right to distinction. Such a method of procedure seems,
however, to be utterly at variance with the views of certain South
American so-called palaeontologists, to whom the task of describing
the fossil mammals in the La Plata Museum has been unfortunately
from time to time confided. Instead of endeavouring to find out
whether the specimens before them might not belong to one or the
other of the two named species of Nesodon, they appear to have
started on the assumption that almost every single bone or tooth that
came under their notice must pertain to a totally new animal. In
consequence, we have remains which clearly belong either to one or
other of the two Owenian species, or to the above-mentioned inter-
mediate form, assigned to something like a dozen genera (such as
* Some of these bones are described and figured in the forthcoming issue of the
An. Mus. La Plata, containing an account of the results of my own work
[ II
Acrotherium, Adinotherium, Atrypotherium, Colpodon, Nesotherium, Grono-
therium, Phobereotherium, Protoxodon, and Scopotherium); while the
number of nominal species must, I should think, be fully half-a-
hundred. As a result of this extraordinary method of procedure, an
enormous proportion of the specimens in the La Plata Museum are
“types,” whereby that institution is prevented from doing as much
in the way of exchange as would otherwise be practicable. This
remarkable ignorance of the first principles of odontological anatomy,
and of the different forms assumed by teeth according to the ages of
their owners, displayed by the palaeontologists in question, surpasses
belief, and there are certain specimens in the Museum bearing
different generic names which even any ordinary student would say
were identical. Indeed, on the principle (or, rather, want of principle)
which appears to have guided the Argentine palaeontologists, about a
dozen species and some half-a-dozen genera might easily be made
out of remains of the common horse. It is true that Nesodon displays
an extraordinary degree of variation in the relative proportions of the
large incisors in both jaws, but the gradual evolution of the adult
from the young stage is indicated over and over again in the collection
of the Museum ; and with regard to the species founded on the
evidence of the cheek-teeth, there is not the least excuse. This,
however, is not all, for some of the so-called genera have actually
been assigned to families apart from Nesodon; while the latter itself
is separated, as a family, from the Toxodontidae without the faintest
shadow of justification. -
I must, however, do one of the above-mentioned workers the
justice of saying that he has at last partially seen the errors of his
ways, and has tardily abolished some of the superfluous genera
made by himself and his colleagues. His repentance comes, however,
too late—after all the mischief has been done; and even then it is
but half-hearted. He maintains, for instance, the genus Acrotherium,
which is merely founded on specimens belonging to some of the
three species of Nesodon, with a superfluous premolar tooth, probably
caused by the first premolar having come up in front of the corre-
sponding milk-molar, instead of replacing it; while the list of nominal
species remains as long as ever. South American palaeontological work
has, indeed, already become a bye-word in England, but it is really
far worse than I had any idea of previous to my visit to La Plata;
and it may be worth the consideration of the Council of the Zoological
Record whether it will not for the future be advisable to omit all
mention of the majority or the whole of the names proposed by the
Argentine palaeontologists to whom I refer, as being mere useless
encumbrances, instead of aids, to science.
Passing from this unpleasant portion of my subject to more
agreeable matters, I may now call attention to two very remarkable
members of the Toxodont Suborder, both being animals not larger
than a rabbit, and exhibiting most marked rodent resemblances. The
'w masn IN v Lvºta vº I AHL NI CIALNmow sy
ºwopoxo I do No LaTaXſS


"W InGISOIN VLVTJ VT
'III º LwT ，H+691 “Ai （IoA （ao Naros ºrvºn LvN

BRYANT WALKER LIBRARY
MUSEUM OF ZOOLOGY
[ I3 ] university OF MICHIGA"
one of these is Hegetotherium from the Santa Cruz beds of Patagonia,
and the other Pachyrucus from the deposits of Monte Hermoso. The
latter of the two is distinguished from its ally by the tympanic bullae
being situated on the superior aspect of the skull and is so Rodent-
like in general form and structure that it is almost difficult to believe
that it is not an ally of the hares. It is, however, as shown by its
teeth, clearly a member of the Toxodont Ungulata, and since it is
perfectly evident that such an animal cannot have been the ancestor
of the Rodentia, it follows that the Rodent resemblances presented by
the more specialised Toxodonts must be due to parallelism.
By many writers the Toxodonts have been placed, with the Pro-
boscidea and certain extinct suborders, in the Subungulata; they
have, however, the alternating carpus of the Perissodactyla and
Artiodactyla, coupled with the linear tarsus of the Proboscidea,
while the astragalus is but slightly grooved, and the calcaneum carries
a large facet for the fibula, as in the suborder last mentioned. These
features clearly indicate that the Toxodonts (which are further
characterised by some or all of their teeth growing for the greater
portion or the whole of life) must form a subordinal group of equal
rank with the Artiodactyla, Perissodactyla, and Proboscidea.
Another subordinal group of extinct South American Ungulates,
for which I have suggested the name Astrapotheria, is formed by the
genera Homalodontotherium and Astrapotherium. Differing from the
Toxodonts in having their teeth rooted at an early age, these Ungu-
lates are further distinguished by having a perfectly flat astragalus
with a head at the lower end for the navicular, while it is probable
that both the carpus and tarsus were of the linear type. The cheek-
teeth are, moreover, exceedingly like those of the Perissodactyla, and
more especially the Rhinocerotidae, to which the members of this group
approximated in point of size. Although there seems to be but one
species of the first-mentioned genus and only two or three of the latter,
the list of synonyms in the case of Astrapotherium is of the usual
appalling length. As its name implies, the genus Homalodontotherium
is characterised by the teeth being forty-four in number and forming
an uninterrupted series, with the canines not longer than the incisors.
Until recently this genus was known only by the teeth and jaws, but
the La Plata Museum contains numerous specimens of the vertebrae
and limb-bones. Among these, the humerus is remarkable for the
great development of its deltoid crest, which recalls that of the wombat.
A very different animal is the gigantic Astrapotherium, the type
species of which was originally described by Owen as Nesodon
magnum. In this creature the dentition is reduced, and each jaw
furnished with a huge pair of tusks, while the upper molars are
extraordinarily like those of the rhinoceroses. There are no teeth
between the huge upper tusks, which I have reason to believe
are incisors; but in the lower jaw there are three pairs of small
incisors, with curious spatulate crowns, situated between the pig-like
[ I4 |
tusks, which are here clearly canines. Astrapotherium has been
placed among the so-called Dinocerata, but it is certain that such
resemblances as it presents to that group must be attributed to
parallelism, while its relationship to Homalodontotherium (as proved
by the limb-bones in the Museum) is perfectly clear. It cannot,
moreover, have any direct relationship with the Rhinocerotidae, so
that the resemblance of its molar teeth to those of that group is
again apparently due to parallelism.
A third subordinal group of extinct Ungulates peculiar to South
America is represented by Macrauchenia in the Pampean deposits, and
by Proterotherium and certain allied forms in the Patagonian Tertiaries.
These animals have been placed by some writers with the Perissodactyla,
but it is certain that Professor Cope is perfectly correct in regarding
them as representing a distinct suborder—the Litopterna. Agreeing
with the Perissodactyles in having an odd number of toes, with the
middle one symmetrical in itself, and likewise in the pulley-like upper
surface of the astragalus, these Ungulates differ from that group in
having both the carpus and the tarsus of the linear type,” and likewise by
the fibula articulating to a small facet on the calcaneum (as in the Artio-
dactyla). Moreover, in those cases where they are known, the vertebrae
of the neck are much elongated, and have the sides of the neural
arch pierced by the canal for the vertebral artery in a manner now
solely characteristic of the Camel family. Like the other suborders of
extinct Ungulates peculiar to South America, the Litopterna further
differ from both the Artiodactyla and Perissodactyla in having the
bodies of the cervical vertebrae articulating together by flat terminal
surfaces, instead of by a ball-and-socket joint. They likewise pre-
sent the same strongly-marked similarity to the Perissodactyla in the
structure of their cheek-teeth—a feature doubtless inherited from a
common ancestor among the Condylarthrous Ungulates of the
Eocene, but more or less specially developed subsequently by paral-
lelism. The Litopterna are divisible into the two families of the
Macraucheniidae and Proterotheriidae, the former being distinguished by
the full and uninterrupted dentition; while in the latter the teeth are
reduced in number and interrupted. An ancestral form of Macrau-
chenia is represented by the species of Oxyodontotherium (Theosodon) of
the Patagonian Tertiaries, which were much smaller creatures than
the Pampean animals, while an intermediate type existed in the
Parana beds.3 In this family, as well as in the next, I have again to
deplore a superabundance of names, both specific and generic, as I
have pointed out in the memoir referred to.
Among all these curious types of Ungulates, none are more
remarkable than the Proterotheriidae, as represented by the genera
2 It may be well to mention that in the linear type of carpus and tarsus the
bones of the two horizontal rows are set directly one over the other (as in the
Proboscidea), whereas in the alternating type the bones of the upper row are placed
over the divisions between those of the lower.
[ I5 |
Proterotherium and Diadiaphorus of the Patagonian Tertiaries and the
Parana beds. These were animals varying in size from a peccari to
a tapir, with molar teeth more or less closely resembling those of
the European Oligocene genus Palaeotherium, but having only a single
pair of tusk-like incisors in the upper jaw, and two pairs of lower
incisors, one of which was much larger than the other. From the
researches of Señor Ameghino, it is already known that in one
member of this family (Epitherium), occurring in beds above the
horizon of the Patagonian deposits, the feet were of the general type
of those of Hipparion—that is to say, the middle toe was greatly
developed at the expense of the two lateral ones, which were small
and functionless. I find, however, from the evidence of the speci-
mens in the La Plata Museum, that some at least of the Patagonian
representatives of the family were likewise provided with feet of the
same highly-specialised type, while I have no evidence that any of
them had functional lateral digits.
This extreme specialisation of the feet of these otherwise.
generalised Ungulates is a feature interesting enough in itself, but it
is of still more importance in regard to the relative age of the strata
in which their remains occur. The Patagonian Tertiaries of Santa
Cruz, from which the remains of Proterotheriidae are obtained, appear
to be nearly, if not quite, the oldest South American deposits yielding
remains of land mammals. They are correlated by Señor Ameghino
(who, by the way, suggests that Proterotherium and Diadiaphorus were
animals provided with three functional toes to each foot) with
the lower Eocene of Europe, while the Parana, Monte Hermoso,
and other intermediate beds are assigned to the Oligocene and
Miocene, and the Pampean deposits identified with the Pliocene.
Now the fact that in the reputed lower Eocene beds we
meet with animals having a foot as specialised as is that of
Proterotherium, serves, to my mind, at least, to show the utter un-
tenability of the hypothesis in question. We know that in the
lower Eocene of both Europe and North America the Ungulates
were all five-toed animals with brachydont, and generally
tritubercular teeth; and if the South American Ungulates with feet of
the Proterotherium type, hypsodont molars like those of Nesodon, or tusks
of the length of those of Astrapotherium, were also of lower Eocene age,
it would involve the existence of a mammalian fauna like that of the
Puerco Eocene and London Clay in some part of the world during the
Cretaceous epoch, from which the Patagonian Ungulates had originated.
Of the existence of such a fauna there is, I need scarcely say, not only
a total lack of positive proof, but likewise very strong evidence to the
contrary. Then, again, the existence of a member of the existing genus
Dasypus (Začdius) in the Santa Cruz beds renders it impossible to
regard them as of lower Eocene age. - -
* For this form Señor Ameghino has proposed the barbarous name Scalabrini-
therium, a term which may be changed to Scalabrinia.
[ 16 |
Moreover, in my forthcoming memoir on the fossil Cetaceans in
the La Plata Museum, I have called attention to the circumstance
that in one part of Patagonia there occurs a bed yielding Cetacean
remains which appears to underlie the Santa Cruz deposits. Now
this Cetacean bed most certainly is not of lower Eocene age, and is,
indeed, probably Miocene, an identification which, if established, will
at once overthrow the Eocene, or, indeed, Oligocene hypothesis of the
Patagonian beds. Apart from this evidence, I am, however, quite
convinced that the Patagonian Ungulates, owing to the specialisation
of the feet in some cases and of the teeth in others, are not lower
Eocene, or even Eocene at all, but are far more probably of Miocene
age. The correlation of some of the beds lying between the Santa
Cruz and Pampean deposits with the European Oligocene and
Miocene likewise will not bear critical observation, and can,
indeed, only be maintained by the creation of species or genera
which have no existence save in the minds of their founders. For
instance, I find it impossible to distinguish specifically the remains of
Typotherium found in the reputed Miocene strata of Monte Hermoso
from those of the typical Pampean form, while, as I have already
shown, the so-called Hipphaplus of the supposed Oligocene Parana
deposits is nothing more than a species of the Pampean genus
Hippidium; and if we are to have Oligocene strata with a genus so
close to Equus as to be doubtfully distinct therefrom, what possible
grounds can there be for correlating them with the horizon so-named
in Europe 2 I can believe, indeed, in the late survival of a
generalised genus, but I utterly refuse to credit the occurrence of a
specialised one on a horizon far below its proper one. The proposal
to regard the Pampean beds (which are some of the most recent-
looking deposits I have seen in any part of the world, and contain
evidence of the existence of man contemporaneously with the extinct
mammals) as of Pliocene rather than Pleistocene age, is on a par with
the above wild conjectures—for I can scarcely call them theories.
In my own opinion, indeed, the whole of the series of fossiliferous
strata from the Cetacean beds and the Santa Cruz deposits of
Patagonia to the topmost Pampeans, may in all probability be
included within the period occupied by the Miocene (perhaps inclusive
of the upper Oligocene), Pliocene, and Pleistocene beds of Europe.
Another Patagonian mammal of great interest is one for which
Señor Ameghino has proposed the name of Pyrotherium, and which
he places among the Eocene Coryphodonts, although I fail to see the
reason for the association. The type specimens include a premolar
and molar tooth, as well as a tusk, but I have reason to believe that
the latter pertained to Astrapotherium. The molars of this gigantic
animal resemble those of the Australian extinct Diprotodon, and
the last two molars of the Proboscidean genus Dinotherium ; and it
hence seems that these teeth are insufficient to determine the affinities
of this strange creature. The type specimens were obtained from
[ 17 J
Neuquen in Patagonia, but others in the Museum come from Chubut,
in the same country. The latter were found in association with
remains of Astrapotherium, Homalodontotherium, and Nesodon, thus
showing that the horizon of these beds is identical with, or very near
to, that of the Santa Cruz deposits. In a paper published some time
ago in La Revue Scientifique by Dr. Trouessart, from notes supplied
by Señor Ameghino, it is stated that Pyrotherium occurs in beds
yielding Dinosaurian remains; but this must, I think, be now
regarded as incorrect. Possibly a fragment of a very large tusk
from Chubut of a Proboscidean type may belong to Pyrotherium, in
which case the genus would probably have to be regarded as allied
to Dinotherium. The section of this tusk is egg-shaped, with a
maximum diameter of about four inches. As in Dinotherium, the
dentine does not show decussating striae.
Omitting any reference to the large collection of Edentates,
Rodents, and Marsupials from the Santa Cruz beds of Patagonia
contained in the Museum, we may pass on to the Cetacean remains
mentioned above, all of which are contained in the same gallery as
the land-mammals from Patagonia. Several of these Cetaceans
are of especial interest, on account of their exhibiting generalised
features unknown in any of their living relatives, and thus afford
very important evidence in regard to the phylogeny of the two
existing subordinal groups of this order. Although of less wide
interest than most of the others, one of the finest specimens in this
series is the nearly entire skull of a small baleen-whale, which, from
the evidence of the tympanic bone, I have assigned to the European
Tertiary genus Cetotherium. Like the other remains, this skull
was obtained from a sandy deposit a short distance from the
shore at Chubut. Most of the other remains are those of
toothed-whales, among which a fine, though somewhat imper-
fect, skull of a small form allied to the sperm-whale claims
special attention. As our readers are doubtless aware, the whole
of the existing members of the sperm-whale family are characterised
by the absence of functional teeth in the upper jaw, those in
the lower jaw varying in number from more than twenty on each
side to a single pair. The Patagonian skull shows, however, a full
series of large conical teeth in both the upper and lower jaws,
these teeth being not unlike those of the sperm-whale, although
furnished with thin caps of enamel on their crowns. The skull has
the same general form as that of the cachalot, displaying a large and
deep frontal cavity for spermaceti. From the structure of the teeth
I have identified this skull with the European Tertiary genus Physodon,
which has hitherto been but very imperfectly known ; and since its
inclusion in the Physeteridae would render that group very difficult to
define, I have suggested that it should constitute a family by itself.
Another member of the same family is represented in the Museum by
a smaller cranium, to which I have assigned the name of Hypocetus.
A totally different type of Cetacean is presented by a small
18 )
skull with teeth of the type of those of the European Tertiary
genus Squalodon, but differing from the latter in number. This
difference alone I should not have regarded as of generic value,
but an examination of the nasal region showed the presence of
prominent nasal bones projecting over the nasal cavity in a manner
quite unknown in any living member of the suborder, and I accor-
dingly consider this form as the representative of a new genus, with
the name of Prosqualodon. Precisely the same feature, although in a
more exaggerated degree, is displayed in the nasal region of an
exceedingly elongated and dolphin-like skull, with simple teeth,
which I have described under the name of Argyrocetus. From its
general characters, I refer this skull to the Platanistidae, but it differs
from that of the three existing genera of that family by the symmetry
of the narial region, and the projecting, wedge-shaped, and roof-like
nasal-bones. Although the discovery, sooner or later, of toothed-
whales with projecting nasals and symmetrical skulls was a thing to
be expected, yet the absence of any evidence of the existence of such
forms hitherto has been regarded as a bar to the derivation of the
baleen-whales from the toothed-whales. This obstacle has now been
removed by the discovery of these two extinct genera in the
Patagonian Tertiaries, and it is possible that future investigations
will show that certain other features, which have been regarded as
indicating a dual origin for the two groups in question, admit of
another explanation. The inclusion of these two forms in
the Odontoceti (and they certainly cannot be regarded as repre-
senting a distinct group) must, to some extent, modify the ordinarily-
accepted definition of that suborder. The last of the Patagonian
Cetaceans is represented by two skulls, which indicate a rather large
member of the Delphinidae, with a somewhat elongated snout. This
form, which I have proposed to designate by the name of Argyrodelphis,
differs, however, from all existing dolphins in that the hinder teeth are
furnished with minute fore-and-aft cusps, thus showing another
ancestral feature among the Patagonian Cetaceans.
Concerning the (collection of remains of giant birds from the
Santa Cruz deposits in the La Plata Museum, so much has of late
years been written, and the plates accompanying the memoir of
of Señores Moreno and Mercerat are so excellent, that it will be
unnecessary to say much in this place. It is, however, certain that the
number of generic names which have been published is much too
large, and that the name Phorosrhachus, originally proposed by Señor
Ameghino, has the right of priority. Apart from their gigantic
size, these birds claim especial attention on account of the extra-
ordinary size and massiveness of their skulls, as attested by the form
of the mandibular symphysis, of which there are several examples in
the Museum. Although, in the memoir referred to above, these birds
were arranged under several family and generic heads, I am in
accord with Señor Ameghino in regarding the whole of them as
| 19
pertaining to a single family, the larger members of which may
be subdivided into two genera, Phonorhacus and Brontornis. In the
former the symphysis of the lower jaw was long and narrow, its length
when entire being probably about 7% inches, and its maximum width
2% inches. In the more massively built Brontornis, on the other hand,
the sympyhsis was very broad and short, while the margin of the jaw
was remarkable for its extreme curvature, the tip being sharply
inclined upwards. The approximate length of the whole symphysis
is 5% inches, and the width about four inches. This type of jaw
seems quite unlike that of any living group of birds.
Of the cranium, the Museum possesses two fragments, neither of
which are figured in the memoir of Señores Moreno and Mercerat.
One of these comprises the occipital and parietal regions, imperfect
on the left side, where it shows a cast of a portion of the brain ; while
the other is a part of the left side of the cranial box, with the quadrate
in position. From the latter I was fortunately enabled to detach the
greater part of the quadrate, and was thus able to learn that this bone
was articulated to the cranium by two distinct heads, and that it was
apparently not overlapped by a descending process of the squamosal.
Both these being essentially Carinate characters, it seems evident that
the Stereornithes cannot be included in the Ratitae; and that they
must consequently either be placed among the Carinatae or form
a group by themselves.
This group, in which Gastoynis may have to be included, will
perhaps turn out to form the connecting link between Carinates and
Ratites.
Their vertebrae were highly pneumatic; but the hollow leg-bones
appear to have been devoid of pneumatic foramina, and during life
were probably filled with marrow, like those of existing Ratitae. In
Brontornis the tibia has a length of 30 inches, while the metatarsus
measures 15% inches in length, with a width of 5% inches at the upper
end, and 3 inches in the middle of the shaft. Although displaying a
similar depression at the upper part of the front of the shaft, the
metatarsus of Phororhacus is a much more slender bone, the length in
one species being 15% inches, with a maximum width at the upper
end of 3+ inches, and of I+ inches at the middle of the shaft.
The much smaller imperfect metatarsus figured under the name
of Palaeociconia is regarded by Señor Ameghino as inseparable from
Phororhacus ; but from the circumstance that the foramen between
the third and fourth trochleae perforates the bone at right angles,
instead of descending obliquely so as to open inferiorly on the lower
aspect of the bone between the two trochleae, I am inclined to think
that it has a right to generic distinction.
The whole of the remains noticed above are from formations of
Tertiary age, but the collection of fossil vertebrates does not end
with that period. From certain deposits in the districts of Chubut
and Neuquen, in Patagonia, which are probably of Cretaceous age,
[ 20 | sº
there have been obtained a large series of Dinosaurian bones
pertaining to reptiles rivalling in size their most gigantic European
and North American allies. One of these creatures, although by no
means the largest, I have referred, in a memoir about to be published
by the Museum, to the genus Titanosaurus, originally founded, on the
evidence of caudal vertebrae, from the Cretaceous rocks of India.
These vertebrae differed from those of all other gigantic Dinosaurs in
having a cup at the anterior end of the centrum, and a ball at the
opposite extremity, thus resembling those of existing crocodiles.
The large series of specimens in the La Plata Museum serves to
show that Titanosaurus, as had been previously suspected, is really
a member of that group of Dinosaurs to which the name of Sauropoda
has been applied. This is clearly shown by a fine dorsal vertebra
exhibiting the well-known lateral pits characterising that suborder.
In these vertebrae, it may be observed, the cup is situated at the
hinder end of the centrum, and the change of type is effected by
means of the first caudal vertebra, which, as in crocodiles, is
biconvex. The bones of an enormous fore-limb, together with an
imperfect femur and two caudal vertebrae, indicate a still more
stupendous member of the same family, for which I have suggested
the name of Argyrosaurus. In the type specimen the length of the
humerus is nearly the same as in the gigantic humerus
from the Kimmeridge Clay preserved in the British Museum, and
mentioned in the Catalogue of Fossil Reptiles under the name of
Pelorosaurus humerocristatus. A smaller Dinosaur, characterised by the
slight development of the lateral pits in the vertebrae of the trunk,
and hence named Microcalus, appears to indicate a type unknown
either in Europe or North America, while two vertebrae point to
the existence in Patagonia of a Dinosaur more or less closely allied
to the European Megalosaurus. With the discovery of these interes-
ting Dinosaurs in Patagonia, we have now evidence that this ex-
traordinary group of reptiles was represented during the upper half
of the Secondary epoch by allied forms throughout the greater part of
the world, their remains having now been obtained from Europe,
India, Australia, South Africa, and North and South America. The
vertebrate land fauna of the world seems therefore at that compara-
tively early epoch to have been much more homogeneous than it has
ever been since, while there is no evidence of any marked distinction
between the types of life inhabiting the northern and southern
hemispheres.
To give an exhaustive account of all the treasures of the
La Plata Museum would entail an amount of space far beyond that
which is here available, but I trust that the foregoing brief sketch
may convey to the palaeontologists of Europe some idea of the
richness and interest of the collections which are stored in the
handsome building in La Plata. The Government are, indeed, to be
congratulated on having founded such a noble institution as the
[ 21 J
Museum ; and it is to be hoped that, when the scientific value and
importance of its contents are more fully realised, they will not refuse
such financial support as may be necessary for ensuring their
preservation, and for making them known to the world at large by
means of suitable publications.
It is not, however, solely as a geological, palaeontological, and
zoological institution that the Museum of La Plata demands
admiration and support. It is likewise a great printing and charto-
graphical establishment, where Government documents and maps are
produced with a speed worthy of all commendation. The aim of the
Director is, indeed, that the Museum should eventually display the
entire evolutionary history and the whole of the natural products of
Argentina; while it should at the same time be the depository of the
whole of the data relating to the geography and topography of the
country, and the place where all information on such subjects should
be readily accessible to the public. For the success of this grand
and noble scheme the Director has, as he deserves, our most cordial
good wishes.
In conclusion, I have the pleasure of tendering my most hearty
thanks to Dr. and Mrs. Moreno for the hospitality and unvarying
kindness which I received at their hands during my brief but
pleasant sojourn in La Plata.
RICHARD LYDEKKER.
Las Bandurrias, La Colina,
Buenos Aires,
November 3rd, 1893.
NATGIRAL SCIENCE:
A Monthly Review of Scientific Progress,
-*—
-—
In addition to Notes and Comments on the progress of Natural Science, brief Reviews o
Current Literatiire, Obituary Notices, and News of Universities, Museums, and Societies, the
four last numbers of this Journal comprise the following specially contributed Articles:—
No. 21, November, 1893.
I. Geology in Secondary Education. By Professor Grenville A. J. Cole, M.R.I.A., F.G.S.
II. Natural Science at the Chicago Exhibition. By F. A. Bather, M.A., F.G.S.
III. The Place of the Lake-Dwellings of Glastonbury in British Archaeology. By Professor
W. Boyd Dawkins, M.A., F.R.S. {
IV. The Air. Sacs and Hollow Bones of Birds. By F. W. Headley, M.A., F. Z.S.
V. On the AEtiology and Life-History of some Vegetal Galls and their Inhabitants. By
G. B. Rothera, F.L.S.
VI. Desert or Steppe Conditions in Britain : a Study in Newer Tertiary Geology. By Clement
Reid, H.G.S. - - f
VII. The Genesis of Mountain Ranges. By T. Mellard Reade, C.E., F.G.S.
VIII. Indexes to Botanical and Zoological Nomenclature.
IX. The Wilds of South-East Africa.
No. 22, December, 1893.
I. High-Level Shelly-Sands and Gravels. By T. Mellard Reade, C.E., F.G.S.
II. Some Facts of Telegony. By Frank Finn, F. Z.S.
- III. Further Notes upon Arachnid and Insect Development. By George H. Carpenter, B.Sc.
IV. Note on the Evolution of the Scales of Fishes. By A. Smith Woodward, F.L.S.
V. The Sedgwick Museum, Cambridge. By Henry Woods, B.A., F.G.S.
VI. Recent Explorations of the Maltese and Sicilian Caverns.
No 23, January, 1894.
I. Tyndall. By J. W. Gregory, D.Sc., F.G.S.
II. Natural Science in Japan. By F. A. Bather, M.A., F.G.S.
III. The La Plata Museum. By R. Lydekker, B.A., F. Z.S.
IV. Note on the Air-Sacs and Hollow-Bones of Birds. By Frederic A. Lucas.
V. Cell-Division. By M. D. Hill.
VI. Recent Researches on Olive-Brown Seaweeds. By Miss E. S. Barton.
VII. Scientific Volapuk.
No. 24, February, 1894.
I. Neuter Insects and Lamarckism. By W. Platt Ball.
II. Natural Science in Japan. II.-Present. By F. A. Bather, M.A., F.G.S.
III. The Influence of Volcanic Dykes upon Littoral Life and Scenery. By James Hornell.
IV. The La Plata Museum. By R. Lydekker, B.A., F Z.S. i
V. Plant Diseases and Bacteria. By George Murray, F.L.S.
VI. The Causes of Variation in the Composition of Igneous Rocks. By Professor H.
Johnston-Lavis, M.D., F.G.S.
Annual Subscription, payable in advance to MACMILLAN & Co.
Bedford Street, Covent Garden, London, W.C., Fourteen Shillings, pos