76 MR. G. BUSK ON THE ANCIENT OR 
TABLE showing Dimensions of the Cranium and Teeth in Hyena. 









| Gibraltar H, erocuta| |, brunnea.| H. sae 
specimen. cipnelier, Cees| (Mean.) | (Mean.) 
inches. inches. inches. inches. inches. 
1. Length from occipital crest to incisive border ...... 10°6 10:8 10°7 10-1 9-0 
2. », condyles to incisive border .......... 9°9 ae 9°8 9-1 8:2 
3. Width between outsides of CGKMIES ss acobasoomeoe 21 2:2 2-0 2:0 16 
4, Width of skull over auditory foramina............ 39 Sete 39 34 31 
5. Width of base of occipital triangle .............. 4:0 
6: Here httol es ew eee Py hn ieteren: Serer 38 
Mis Figsames magnum, al and trd. Rida oan igh auek® 10:9 
So, Auditory sbullas cs yn a ciccrttrctssiusteieteis eerie: al) S2beeorl 
WO: Molariseries Piotr tisaies dees seca mee feces oe 3-4 37 3°34 3:12 2°7 
LQ: JBmia dl crs sateorele ra cyathaxepels caer de meet eakee renee 80 x25 | 83x 32} °30 x -27 | 27x 25 | -23 x -22 
EIR erie o Coote ae aOooe a5 abide To UoIOO saee eee “72x 51 | °68 x -43 | ‘67 x 50 | 68 x 46 | +62 x 40 
MD Pe EMieted aceenoteter ston teteter terete ate paraevereracca release eeete a 1:05 x -72/1:00 x -73) °94 x *70 | 93 x °85 | -80 x 52 
1S. ABTA eee Sea siok ae cit tee oe ersten vat nine Bate 1:50 x 80 |1-60 x 87 |1:46 x *84/1°42 x -63)1-17 x -70 
IC WR aS See b OC iro ato OO he dow oamrD Frame ‘2x—? 0 2x1 | 51x -21) 50x21 









The mere inspection of these numbers will be sufficient to show that the Gibraltar 
fossil Hyena is in all essential particulars, as regards cranial and dental measurements, 
very closely in accord with Hyena crocuta and H. spelwa, whilst at the same time it 
offers considerable differences from both H. drunnea and ZH. striata. Further examina- 
tion only tends to prove that this similarity is real, and that the Hyena found in the 
Genista Cave is, in fact, identical with the Spotted Hyena of Southern and Western 
Africa, and quite distinct from the Striped Hyena of Western Asia and Northern 
Africa. 
This conclusion is so contrary to what might have been expected, that when it was 
forced upon us it could not fail to excite the greatest surprise and interest; and 
Dr. Falconer went into the question of the specific identification of the specimen with 
his well-known acuteness and zeal. Unfortunately at that time there were no known 
materials in London for studying the cranial and dental characters of Hyena brunnea, 
although there were two skulls erroneously assigned to that species in the British 
Museum }. 
The consequence was that Dr. Falconer had no means of determining differences 
between H. crocuta and H. brunnea, and was misled into the impression that the 
Gibraltar Hyena was of the latter species. For the same reason he was induced to 
regard the Hyena fusca of G. St.-Hilaire as distinct from H. brunnea, Thunb., and to 
adopt the notion that MH. maculata, Kaup, was distinct from H. crocuta, Erxl. (sp.). 
* A full account of the cause of this confusion will be found in my paper “* On the Cranial and Dental Cha- 
racters of the existing Species of Hyena,” published in the Linnean Society’s Journal, Zoology, vol. ix. p. 59, 
1866, 
