the differences in the two genera (in particular focusing on a differing number of digits) as being as significant as those between Equus and Hipparion, which is to say that they were quite sufficient for distinction. Harry Seeley gave consideration to the differences in the skulls, and took Huxley's side. Fox, on the other hand, rejected Huxley's proposal of a distinct genus for his material, and subsequently took back his skull and gave it to Owen to study, along with some other fragments. In attempt to clarify the situation, John Whitaker Hulke returned to the Hypsilophodon fossil bed on the Isle of Wight to obtain more material, with particular focus on teeth. He remarked that the whole of the skeleton seemed to be represented there, but the fragility of many elements greatly impeded excavation. He published a description of his new specimens in 1873, and based on his examination of the new teeth fossils echoed Fox's sentiments of doubt about the differences from Iguanodon. He commented that Owen was due to argue for the taxon as a distinct species, but within the genus Iguanodon. This came to pass, and Owen compared at length the teeth of known Iguanodon and those from Fox's specimens. He agreed there were differences, but found them lacking in sufficient distinctiveness to be considered a distinct genus. Regarding Boyd Dawkins' comparison, he acknowledged it, but it did not sway him. As such, he renamed the species Iguanodon foxii. However, Hulke had, by then, shifted his opinion. He had obtained yet more material from the beds, namely two specimens, one he suspected of being fully grown, which he thought demonstrated the anatomy of the species more clearly than any of the previous ones. Building on Huxley's comments on the Mantell-Bowerbank block, he gave focus to vertebral characters. As a result of his study, he retained that Hypsilophodon was definitely a relative of Iguanodon, but that it seemed to him too different to be retained in the same genus. He published these findings in a supplementary note, also in 1874. Finally, in 1882 he published a full osteology of the species, considering it of great importance to properly document the taxon as such a wealth of specimens had been discovered and comparison with American dinosaurs was necessary (Othniel Charles Marsh had by this point allied the genus to his taxa Nanosaurus, Laosaurus, and Camptosaurus from the United States).