^{page 400 note 1} Owen, , “On Fossil Evidences of a Sirenian Mammal (Eotherium œgyptiacum, Owen) from the Nummulitic Eocene of the Mokattam Cliffs, near Cairo”: Quart. Journ. Geol. Soc., vol. xxxi (1875), p. 100, pl. iiiCrossRefGoogle Scholar.

^{page 400 note 2} Dames, , “Ueber Zeuglodonten aus Aegypten und die Beziehungen der Archaeoceten zu den Uebrigen Cetaceen”: Palaeont. Abhand., neue Folge, Bd. i (1894), p. 189Google Scholar.

^{page 401 note 1} “Tageblatt des V Internationalen Zoologen - Congresses,” Berlin, No. 6, 08 16th, 1901, p. 4Google Scholar.

^{page 401 note 2} Remains of a small Mastodon from the Lower Miocene (Cartennien) near Isserville (Kabylie), Algiers, have been described by Depéret, (Bull. Soc. Géol. France, sér. iii, tom. xxv, 1897, p. 518)Google Scholar under the name Mastodon angustidens, var. pygmœus. The teeth from Moghara, though slightly smaller than specimens from Sansan, are not sufficiently so to justify their reference to this small variety. Moreover, there seems to have been little or no cement in the valleys of these teeth, while in Depéret's specimen it was abundant.

^{page 403 note 1} “Tageblatt des V Internationalen Zoologen-Congresses,” Berlin, No. 6, 08 16th, 1901, p. 4Google Scholar. The generic name refers to the fact that the remains of the animal were found near the bed of the ancient Lake Mœris. The species is named after Captain Lyons, Director-General of the Egyptian Geological Survey.

Schweinfurth, , in his account of the Fayum (Zeitschrift der Gesellschaft fur Erdkunde zu Berlin, 1886, Bd. xxi, p. 139)Google Scholar, states that in a hill about 12½ miles west from the temple discovered by him he collected a jaw of Zeuglodon and two mandibular rami of a creature resembling a pig or tapir and corresponding in many respects to Chœropotamus. These specimens were afterwards described by Dames, who (loc. cit. supra) states that the so-called Chœropotamus jaws are in fact the anterior ends of mandibles of Zeuglodon. It seems not improbable, however, that Schweinfurth was more nearly right, and that the specimens actually belonged to the present species. A further examination of these specimens is desirable.

^{page 407 note 1} “Tageblatt des V Internationalen Zoologen-Congresses,” Berlin, No. 6, 08 16th, 1901, p. 4Google Scholar.