Many analogous examples will readily occur to the experienced comparative anatomist. The Horse has been adduced as one to which reference can very readily be made; but I would also cite the Sumatran Rhinoceros, the skull of which, in the Hunterian collection, has already been alluded to. In this species the anterior grinders, in both jaws, are small and simple, and increase in complexity as they recede backwards. The third superior grinder (fig. 8, Pl. V.) presents a single fold of enamel, reflected obliquely forwards from the inner side half-way across the tooth; the outer line of enamel describes a simply undulating line. The opposite grinder of the lower jaw (fig. 9, Pl. V.) has only one-half the breadth of the upper one, but has its grinding surface further complicated by having two inflected folds of enamel from the inner side, and one shorter and broader fold from the outer side. This tooth, therefore, presents a close resemblance to one of the posterior grinders of the lower jaw of the Toxodon, but differs essentially in being of limited growth, and consequently in having fangs.[15] In speculating upon the nature of the organized substances which the teeth of the Toxodon were destined to grind down, we must not only take the structure of the tooth into consideration, but also the power of perpetual renovation, which will compensate for the defective quantity of enamel in the grinders of the Toxodon, as compared with those of the existing Ruminants and Pachyderms, whose grinders, when once completed, receive no further addition of dental substance at their base. The Toxodon, in this character of its dentition, participated in the same advantages with the Capybara and the Megatherium.