2t) MAMMALIA. 



being preserved, the width of the forehead is seen to have been 

 about four inches (100 mm.) when entire. The pedicle of the 

 antler is about 40 mm. long, 125 mm. in circumference, and 

 nearly round. The burr is set a little obliquely on the 

 pedicle, although now rather worn, the deep pits show it 

 to have been strongly developed, its present circumference 

 is 165 mm. The beam, at first round, becomes flattened and 

 gives off its first tyne from the front and outer part, at about 

 60 mm. above the burr, and in this region the upper surface of 

 the beam begins to curve downwards as in Croizet and Jobert's 

 figure. 



In Britain C. ardeus has only been found in the Norwich 

 Crag of Thorpe. In France its remains have been recorded from 

 the Upper Pliocene of Mont Perrier near Issoire (see Vert. 

 Forest Bed, p. 63.) 



CERVUS BOVIDES. 



Now referred, by Prof. Boyd Dawkins, to Alecs latifrons. 



CERVUS CARNUTORUM, LAUGEL. 

 PLATE IV., FIG. 3. 



This species, which was well figured by Gervais (Zool. Pal. 

 Gen., Plate xvi., fig. 4, 1867-69) from a specimen found in the 

 Pliocene of Saint Prest, was first noticed as a British form by 

 Prof. Boyd Dawkins (Quart. Journ. Geol. Soc., Vol. XXVIII., 

 p. 409, 1872). Three specimens are now known from the 

 Norwich Crag (Chillesford Beds) (vide Vert. Forest Bed, p. 53), 

 but the example which has been quoted as from the Forest- 

 bed was dredged off the Norfolk coast, and its horizon is there- 

 fore uncertain. 



CERVUS DAWKINSI, NEWTON. 



The specimen to which the above name was given (Mem. 

 Geol. Surv. Vert. Forest Bed, p. 54, 1882) forms part of the 

 King collection in the Museum of Practical Geology, and was 

 obtained from the Forest-bed. It was at one time included with 

 the species C. verticornis (Quart. Journ. Geol. Soc., Vol. XXVIII., 

 p. 405, 1872) ; Prof. Boyd Dawkins (Pal. Soc., 1886) would now 

 unite with it C. Fitchii and C. Gunnii (Vert. Forest Bed, 

 pp. 56 and 57). I cannot follow Prof. Boyd Dawkins in this 

 instance ; for I am unable to satisfy myself that the two forms 

 which he figures (loc. cit., Plate ii.) can belong to one species, 

 although they are undoubtedly much alike, as I pointed out when 



