188 Miscellaneous, 



Description of a Fossil Cranium of the Mvsk-hnjfalo (Bubnlus mos- 

 chatus, Oweit),froni the Gravel at Moiilenhead, Berks. By Prof. 

 OwKN, F.G.S. 



This specimen was discovered by the Rev. Mr. Kingsley and 

 Mr. J. Luljbock in a gravel-pit close to the engine-house at the 

 Maidenhead station last summer, and is the first example of the 

 subgenus Bubalvs yet recognized as fossil in Britain. It consists 

 of the cranial ])art of the skull, with the horn-cores, nearly perfect. 

 The Professor, in descril)ing this fossil, first offered his reasons for 

 regarding the so-called " Musk-ox " as having been unnecessarily 

 separated from the Buffaloes, and then gave an account of the few 

 fossil skulls of tlie Musk-buffalo yet known, viz. those figured by 

 Pallas, Ozeretskowsky, and Cuvier. A comparison was then made 

 of the fosi^il remains with recent crania ; and, although the skulls 

 somewhat differ in a few points, es])ecially in the relative curvatures 

 of the horn-cores, yet the author was led to conclude that, as far as 

 the materials for comj)arison at his command would serve, the dif- 

 ferences between the fossil and recent Musk-buffaloes are not of 

 specific value ; tiiat the Bubulus moschutus of the Arctic regions, 

 witii its now restricted range, is the slightly modified descendant of 

 the old companion of the Mammoth and the Tichorhine Rhinoceros, 

 which with them enjoyed a much wider range, both in latitude 

 and longitude, over lands that now form three divisions or con- 

 tinents of the northern hemisphere ; and that the circumstances 

 which have brought about the j)robably gradual extinction of the 

 northern Rhinoceros and Ele])hant have not yet effected that of the 

 contemporary species of Arctic Buffalo. — Proc. Geol. Sac. Dec. 19, 

 1855. 



A last word on Scissurella. By J. Gwyn Jeffreys, Esq., F.R.S. 

 To the Editors of the Annals of Natural History. 



Gentlemen, — I had not intended at first to notice the commu- 

 nication of Mr. Woodward in your last Number, entitled " On the 

 Evils of Increasing Synonyms;" but, lest it may be assumed that I 

 admit his statements, I must request you to insert these few remarks. 



The real question at issue, and tlie only one which in any way 

 concerns naturalists or the cause of science, is whether Schismope is 

 synonymous with Scissurella, or whether they constitute distinct 

 genera. Now, although Mr. Woodward modestly states that he 

 has shown they are synonymous and that the fact admitted of no 

 reply, I cannot help reminding your readers that Dr. Gray (who is 

 undeniably a much better authority than either Mr. Woodward or 

 myself) has expressed a contrary opinion, and that the respective 

 characters of those genera were taken from species which differ from 

 each other in form, organization, and habit. I have now before me 

 130 specimens of Scissurella crispata of different ages and sizes, all 

 of which exhibit the open slit. 



As regards myself personally, 1 must repeat my regret that Mr. 



J 





