Trituberculy and Polybuny

Article metrics

Abstract

IN all the speculations on the original type of the mammalian molar, beginning from Rütimeyer (1863), we find that a simple cusp or cone is, with perfectly logical reasoning, considered to be the primitive form from which all others are derived. The error, fatal in its consequences, consisted in the fact that all the teeth possessing such a simple form, whither recent or fossil, high or low in the system, have for a long time likewise been considered to be primitive; so that the only problem remaining to be solved, seemed to be to trace back the intermediate stages between the more or less complicated molars of recent mammalia and the “simple reptilian cone.”

Access optionsAccess options

Rent or Buy article

Get time limited or full article access on ReadCube.

from$8.99

All prices are NET prices.

References

  1. 1

    P.Z.S. 1893, p. 198–199.

  2. 2

    H. F. Osborn, "The Rise of the Mammalia in North America", pp. 30–31. (Boston, 1893.)

  3. 3

    H. F. Osborn, "Fossil Mammals of the Upper Cretaceous Beds." (Bull. Am. Mus. Nat. Hist. v. 1893, pp. 311–330, pl. vii.–viii.)

  4. 4

    l.c. p. 320.

  5. 5

    Of their homologues, by the way, may be found traces in the molars of many existing mammals; see e.g. H. Winge, Om Pattedyrenes Tandskifte, 1882, Table III.

  6. 6

    H. F. Osborn, "Fossil Mammals of the Upper Cretaceous Beds." (Bull. Am. Mus. Nat. Hist. v. 1893, p. 322.)

  7. 7

    NATURE, May 3, 1894, pp. 67.

  8. 8

    "On the Fossil Mammalia from the Stonesfield Slate" (Quart. Journ. Micr. Science, vol. xxxv. 1894, pp. 425–23).

  9. 9

    P.Z.S., 1893, pp. 196–214.

Download references

Author information

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Comments

By submitting a comment you agree to abide by our Terms and Community Guidelines. If you find something abusive or that does not comply with our terms or guidelines please flag it as inappropriate.