160 MAMMALIA OF INDIA. 
Young lions when born are invariably spotted ; and Professor Parker 
states that there were in the Zoological Gardens in 1877 three lions 
which were born in the menagerie about ten years previously, and 
which showed “ indistinct, though perfectly evident, spots of a slightly 
darker tawny than the general ground-tint on the belly and flanks.” 
He adds : “ This is also the case with the puma, and it looks very much 
as if all the great Cats were descended from a spotted ancestor.” The 
more dog-like head of the lion is well known to all who have studied 
the physiognomy of the Cats, and I have not only noticed it in drawing 
the animal, but have seen it alluded to in the writings of others. It 
was not, however, till lately that I had an opportunity of comparing the 
skulls of the lion and tiger in the Calcutta Museum, and I am indebted 
to Mr. Cockburn of the museum, not only for the trouble he took in 
getting out the various skulls, but for his assistance in pointing out 
certain peculiarities known to him, but of which I was at the time 
ignorant. ‘That the skull of the lion is flatter than, and wants the 
bold curve of, those of the tiger, leopard and jaguar, is a well-known 
fact, but what Mr. Cockburn pointed out to me was the difference in 
the maxillary and nasal sutures of the face. A glance at two skulls 
placed side by side would show at once what I mean. It would be seen 
that the nasal bones of the tiger run up higher than those of the lion, 
the apices of whose nasal and maxillary sutures are on a level. On 
leaving the museum I compared the tiger skulls in my possession with 
accurate anatomical drawings which I have of the osteology of the lion, 
and the result was the same. It is said that there is also a difference in the 
infra-orbital foramen of the two animals, but this I have failed to detect - 
as yet, though asserted by De Blainville in his magnificent work on 
osteology (‘ Ostéographie’). 
From all that has been written of the African and Indian lions 
I should say that the tiger was the more formidable of the two, as 
he is, I believe, superior in size. About twenty-two years ago my 
attention was drawn to this subject by the perusal of Mr. Blyth’s 
article on the fede in the old Ludia Sporting Review of 1856-57. If 
I am not mistaken there was at that time (1861) a fine skeleton 
of a lion in the museum, as well as those of several tigers, which I 
measured. I had afterwards opportunities of observing and comparing 
skeletons of the two animals in various museums in Europe, though not 
in my own country, for my stay in England on each occasion of 
furlough was brief, and in almost every instance I found the tiger the 
larger of the two. The book in which I recorded my observations, 
and which also contained a number of microscopic drawings of marine 
infusoria, collected during a five months’ voyage, was afterwards lost, so 
I cannot now refer to my notes. 
I believe there was once a case of a fair fight between a well- 
matched lion and tiger in a menagerie (Edmonds’s, I think). The 
