from the Red Crag of Suffolk. 57 
Crag at Felixstowe, in Suffolk. The specimen presents that pe- 
culiar gloss on the surface and mineralized appearance which is 
characteristic of dental remains from this deposit. In addition 
to these circumstances, portions of the shelly matrix still adhere 
between the two fangs of the tooth; so that there can be no 
doubt as regards its claims to belong to the same deposit which 
has furnished the remains of the Felis pardoides, Mastodon an- 
gustidens, &c. The author has submitted the tooth to Dr. Fal- 
coner, who “infers it to be an upper third premolar of a species 
of Hyznoid animal, and probably Hyena,” and “ would approxi- 
mate it to a species of the subgenus Crocotta, which includes H. 
spelea and H. crocuta. The fossil does not appear to belong to 
the Miocene H. Hipparonum of the Vaucluse, which is imper- 
fectly known. Fossil Hyznas are got in the Val d’Arno (Mio- 
cene), which are not yet sufficiently made out. The above 
opinion is expressed with the reserve dictated by the very limited 
amount of the evidence—a solitary premolar.” 
The characters of the subgenus Crocotta of Kaup are the 
presence of spots instead of stripes on the skin, and the absence 
of a mane and anal pouches, which are possessed by the type of 
the other genus, Hyena striata. The dental characters, however, 
form the most Sitar distinction. In both types the formula 
15k = G = pm. a m. — The molar tooth is very small in 
H. striata, presents a narrow oblong surface, and is inserted by 
two fangs. In H. crocuta or Crocotta maculata the molar is 
quite rudimentary, and has a circular conical crown. In H. 
spelea it is even still smaller, and is inserted by a single process. 
The fourth premolar of the lower jaw further distinguishes the 
two subgenera—in H. striata a very prominent tubercle being 
persistently developed, which is absent in H. crocuta and H. 
spelea. With regard to the third premolar of the upper jaw, 
which more immediately relates to the fossil under description, 
in H. striata the central cusp of the tooth (PI. VIII. fig. 4) is less 
produced and less cylindrical than in H. crocuta or H. spelea, 
the “cingulum ” is not appreciably developed, whilst an anterior 
and posterior tubercle are very prominent. In H. crocuta and 
H. spelea, the “cingulum” is invariably strongly marked, and 
is developed posteriorly so as to form an elongated ascending 
ridge, which is not, however, comparable to the tubercles in H. 
striata. It is not difficult thus to separate into subgenera the 
living and Pleistocene species; but when we go further back in 
time, and examine the species of older deposits, the distinctions 
fail, and a combination of characters is found which renders it 
impossible to place the Miocene and older Pliocene species of 
Hyena in either subgenus. In fact this is what would be anti- 
