522 ON THE DOMESTIC PIG OF 



the enunciation of this statement as being definitely proved, his 

 objection amounts to little more than saying that Sus leucomystax 

 is probably not specifically distinct from Sus vittatus, which Nathu- 

 sJus himself holds to be the parent stock of Sus indicus. 



My own views, as based upon the data available to me, are to the 

 following- effect : — The prehistoric domestic swine which have come 

 into my hands appear to me to be more nearly affined to Sus scrq/a 

 than to any of the Asiatic wild swine with which I am acquainted ; 

 secondly, without wishing to affirm absolutely that too much 

 weight has been laid by Nathusius upon the shortness of the lacry- 

 mal for differentiating Sus indicus, as we now see it, from Sus scrofa 

 and its progeny, I am inclined to think that sub-equality^ if not 

 actual equality^ between the malar and the orbital borders of the 

 lacrymal bone may be found in prehistoric skulls of the Sus scrofa^ 

 YSiV.ferus, and especially in the female skulls of that variety o^ Sus 

 which, in other points, such as the slenderness of the snout, differ 

 from the ' Torfschwein,' the representative in those times of Sus 

 indic2is, according to Riitimeyer ; and, thirdly, I think it is possi- 

 ble to show that, whilst Sus cristatus, Sus leucomystax, Sus vittatus^ 

 and Stis timorensis form a closely connected group of Suidae non 

 verrucosi, with which, again, Sus andamanensis and Sus papuensis are 

 to be allied, all these sub-species diff'er in points of considerable if 

 not of specific value from Sus verrucosus of Java, from Sus celebensis, 

 and, finally, from Sus scrofa of the Palaearctic region as well as 

 from the non-verrucose Stis larbatus of Borneo. 



It may be well to begin with this latter point first, and to show 

 that the group of Eastern pigs, of which the wild pig of India, 

 the Malay peninsula, and the Lancay Islands, Sus cristatus, may be 

 taken as a type, is always distinguishable from Sus scrofa, \2bV.ferus, 

 of Europe, and Asia north of the Himalayas. This view is not 

 equivalent to one which should lay it down as certain that they 

 are specifically distinct, a question which it is not proposed to raise 

 here. I should agree, however, with Mr. Jerdon, whose book on 

 the Mammals of India, 1874, came into my hands subsequently to 

 the formation of my opinion, in holding that the Indian wild hog 

 was ' as worthy of specific distinction as many other recognised 

 species' (I.e. p. 241), though this is not to say much. I should 

 not, however, entirely accept his statement to the effect that the 

 head of the Indian wild hog was longer and more pointed than 



