So anomalous is the osteology of the Iguanodon compared with that of existing saurians, that from my discovery of the first vestige of this reptile--a fragment of a tooth--thirty years ago, to the recent important acquisition of the jaws, I have had to contend with the opposition of eminent naturalists, who have refused assent to the physiological inferences suggested by the specimens which were from time to time brought to light, because the modifications of structure in a colossal herbivorous reptile, essentially differed from the hypothetical archetype skeleton of the class to which it belonged. When the first discovered teeth were shown to Baron Cuvier, he pronounced them to be the incisors of a Rhinoceros; the metatarsals, those of a Hippopotamus; the fragment of a femur, with a medullary canal, that of some large mammalian. But the candour and liberality of the founder of Palæontology were worthy of his transcendent genius; upon receiving further evidence, he immediately acknowledged the error, and expressed his conviction that the teeth and bones belonged to an herbivorous reptile more extraordinary than any that had previously been brought under his notice.[137] [Footnote 137: See Cuvier's Ossemens Fossiles, tom. v. part. ii. It is much to be wished that those who aspire to emulate this great man in scientific fame, would also endeavour to imitate him in the yet nobler attributes of his character. It is stated by Professor Owen, in Brit. Assoc. Reports on Fossil Reptiles, that the bones of the Iguanodon were interpreted by me with the aid of Cuvier and Clift. This is a mistake. Baron Cuvier died before I had obtained any considerable portion of the skeleton; and neither Mr. Clift nor Mr. Owen at that time could afford me any assistance in determining the nature of the isolated bones I occasionally brought to the Hunterian Museum for comparison. Any aid I ever received in my investigations is most fully acknowledged in my works.]