Triglyphus Fraas, Oscar, 1866
The following is my translation of a paragraph from the book Vor der Sündfluth (Fraas, 1866) from pages 214-216. It starts at the foot of page 214.
Being discussed is, unknown to the author who'd never heard of such things, a non-mammalian tritylodontid postcanine tooth. The maximum width is about 5mm. As the only known specimen had disappeared by the time of Fraas' publication and the description is very thin, the "genus" was never formally established. However, the postcanine and its owner certainly existed, and that's of potential significance.
The start of the paragraph is a brief homage to "Microlestes", a name which turned out to be preoccupied by a kind of fly. Eventually, after a further case of preoccupation for the revised name, it came to be called Haramiya. Subsequent research and further discoveries indicate it's probably the upper tooth of a genus called Thomasia, a haramiyidan perhaps-mammal.
Despite views expressed in the article, both critters are more likely to have been herbivores rather than insect-killers.

On the Triassic continent would have lived the first and oldest mammal, but not one of the highest order as we know them around us now, ones that give birth to their young as developed and mature, but rather one from the order of the less developed, so called marsupial mammals, which bring their young to the world without a placenta at an early stage, after which they then develop further for a while in their own skin pouch beneath the teats. What we possess of them is naturally only a few small teeth but, nevertheless, these justify us to conclude that they existed. The first small teeth were found in the uppermost Keuper of Stuttgart, in the layer bordering the Liassic, by Professor Plieninger, and so they come from the end of the Triassic. From the tooth crowns with roots, and from the form and number of cusps and tips, it is allowable to recognize their nature as being formerly the cheek teeth of a warm-blooded mammal. He held it as being a probably insect-eating predator and gave it the name of Microlestes, 'the small robber'. This find caused, as is self-explanatory, great excitement in the academic world. Until then, Stonesfield in England ranked as the place where the oldest mammals were found. They lay there in oolite and came from about the middle of the Jurassic; now, at one stroke, the appearance of the first mammals has been pushed back by an entire half of a geological period. The learned of England made their way to Stuttgart, so as to satisfy themselves as to the truth of the matter with their own eyes, and they did convince themselves. Although one cannot recognize any close relationship with any known recent or extinct mammalian type, the fact nevertheless is secure that it is most likely to have been a marsupial-like mammal.

More recent finds confirm this. In the year of 1860, from the same source as Microlestes, came the tooth that is shown both in its natural size and magnified in Figure 77. The locality is the Schlösslesmühle on the Fildern, two hours south of Stuttgart*. This tooth also shows all characters of a genuine mammal tooth and the traces of usage. According to analogy with living creation, the double rows with the individualized tooth cusps place it within the class of the marsupial. Two deep chewing grooves divide the crown into three rows, in which the enamel cusps stand isolated and, thus, it receives the name Triglyphus, 'three carvings'. At present we do not know more. All that we can say about the animal itself, from which this small tooth came, is that it cannot have been greater in size than that of a hedgehog or rat. We must restrict ourselves to recognizing this fact is all that is available, as we do not presently have the means for a more precise account of the first mammal. However, this fact does confirm that God's creation, taken at large, does follow something like the same direction as the development of each individual after they hatch from the egg and grow into a mature creation.

* Unfortunately, the original no longer exists. After it was drawn, the unique specimen disappeared in an inexplicable manner. Did it fall to the ground and get trodden on after an inspection? Or will it one day return again to view?

** Glyphus, die Kerbe ('carving')

An index of my translations of old German articles can be found at:

Kosmos Translations Archive

A number of Mesozoic (and post-Mesozoic) location summaries can be found at Localities.