of cusps and evidently a molar. Of the four broken roots the first or most anterior has a single fang, as has also the second. The third has apparently a single fang, but I am rather doubtful. The fourth has definitely a double fang—the two are united for the very short exposed portion. I read the series as canine, 3 premolars, and 2 molars. Between the third and fourth is the impress of a portion of a crown of an upper series, if this be the lower; and behind the fourth is a long, narrow, curved furrow crossing the series. It shows no sign of sculpture, and I feel doubtful as to whether it is the impress of a tooth or that of one fang of an incisor. In Block C, whose length is but 11 cm., there is preserved (a) the impress of a crown of a molar with two clearly separate fangs, (b) the crown of a second molar likewise with separate fangs, though they are broken across, and (c) the impress of two long, curved, separate and divergent fangs of almost the entire length. I do not know, though I suspect, that these three pieces of rock were found at the same time; whether they are parts of the same animal or not I cannot say; they do not fit with one another in any way. There is evidence then of 5 molars (in A), 3 premolars (in B) and a canine (in B), and that the root fangs were separate and divergent (in C). I think I am justified in associating these teeth with those from Waimate, and attributing them to Lophocephalus parki. Of the four fragments of teeth figured, though not described, by Andrew* A. Andrew, “The Geology of the Clarendon Phosphate Deposits,” Trans. N.Z. Inst., vol. 38, 1905. one of them (fig. 1e) has widely divergent fangs and lacks a crown and much of the fang; the longest of the fangs measures 5.5 cm., with a width of 3.5 cm., the greatest width being in the upper part. This may be attributed to the same whale. Summary. The Zeuglodonts hitherto recorded have come from rocks of Eocene age, whereas these relics were found in those of Oligocene, even in the upper part of that period, and were in New Zealand contemporary with the Squalodonts, which elsewhere, so far as I have been able to ascertain, occur in the Miocene. I am not in a position to decide whether the Zeuglodonts are or are not Cetacean. This has been denied by such capable zoologists as Abel, D'Arcy Thompson and others, and affirmed by equally competent judges. I have therefore followed the usual practice amongst zoological systematists of placing them as Archaeoceti, linking the rest of the Cetacea with the terrestrial Creodonts, with which they agree in their dental formula, but from which they differ in the existence of an elongated rostrum, a thoroughly characteristic Cetacean structure, except that the nostril is not basally situated as in the Odontoceti, but is much nearer the end of the rostrum; while the cranial region is similar to that of the terrestrial mammals, and shows no “telescoping” of the bones except that the ascending process of the maxilla overlaps the anterior portion of the frontal.