86 MR. G. BUSK ON THE ANCIENT OR 
8. FeLis cALIGATA, Temminck. 
Felis caligata sive bubastes, Blainv. 
bubastes, Ehr. & Hemp. (Symb. Phys.). 
cafra sive caffra, Desmarest, Gray. 
—— “ Caracal de Libye,’ Buffon. 
“ Booted Lynx,’ Bruce. 
Chaus caffer, Gray, B. M. Cat. 



4, Fevis MantcuLata, Riippell. 
Felis riippelli, Schinz. 
To which might perhaps be added :— 
5. Feuis catus (fera), Linn. 
6. Fens catus Magna, Schmerling. 
As my comparison has been necessarily limited to the lower jaw and teeth, I 
will confine what I have to remark to these parts alone, which appear amply sufficient 
for the purpose of diagnosis. 
Of the species above enumerated, that whose lower jaw most closely resembles the 
Gibraltar specimen is F. caligata s. bubastes, as represented in M. de Blainyille’s figure }, 
’ which has been taken from a mummified specimen. Comparison of this figure with 
that of the Gibraltar specimen (PI. III. fig. 6) will at once demonstrate their almost 
exact resemblance. It will be useful also to compare M. de Blainville’s figures of the 
lower jaw of F. servalis, F. chaus (mummy) (which seem to me to belong to the same 
species), F. maniculata fera, and F. catus fera, together with Dr. Schmerling’s figure 
of the jaw of F. catus magna, which, although the teeth are, or appear in the figure 
to be, rather smaller, seems to me to be identical with the Serval. 
The several Odontograms of these Cats (P1. XX VII.) will further serve to show the 
differences and resemblances amongst them as regards the dentition; whilst those of 
the recent and mummified F. caligata, compared with that of the Gibraltar specimen, 
will further demonstrate so far the identity of these three forms. 
Besides this comparison with published figures, I have carefully contrasted the 
Gibraltar jaw with that of the so-termed Chaus caffer, Gray (857 a, B. M.) from the 
Cape of Good Hope. 
The jaw and teeth are exactly of the same size. In fact there is no perceptible 
difference between them; and it is clear that whatever may be the species to which the 
Museum specimen (procured from M. Verreaux) belongs, the Gibraltar one is the 
same. ‘The only difference worth noticing is the circumstance that the coronoid process 
is narrower at the bottom in the latter; but both have the same slope of the coronoid 
1 Ostéographie, Pl, xlvii, (Felis, xix.). 
