- Dr. P. L. Sclater on Zilian’s Wart-Hog. | 405 
not having been the case, I think it right in the interests of 
science to state that the so-called Phacochwrus sive Sus Sclatert 
to . Gray is, in my opinion, simply a female of the well- 
known Phacocherus Æliani, Riippell. It is quite true, as 
Dr. Gray has pointed out, that the animal in the Society’s 
Gardens has the ears rather more naked than is represented 
in Rüppell's figure (Zool. Atlas, tab. 25); but in other respects 
the animal in question perfectly agrees with the figure, and 
with Dr. Cretzschmar's excellent description in the letter- 
press. 
In my note on the arrival of this animal (Proc. Zool. Soc. 
1869, p. 276) I have already pointed out the most obvious 
external differences between it and the Phacocherus ethiopicus, 
of which the fine pair presented to the Society, in May 1866, 
by H.R.H. the Duke of Edinburgh, are still living in the 
Saieta gardens. Although we have only the. female of 
Ph. Æliani, yet the comparison of the latter with the corre- 
sponding sex of Ph. æthiopicus will be sufficient to show that 
those naturalists (F. Cuvier, Cretzschmar, and Sundevall) who 
have distinguished the two species had ample grounds to go 
upon as far as external appearance goes. 
As regarcs the remarkable and well-known difference in 
the dentition of the two JPhacocheri, viz. the permanent 
presence of two upper incisor teeth in Phacocherus Aliant, 
which are entirely absent in Ph. æthiopicus, I have re-read 
what Dr. Gray has written upon this subject in his ‘Catalogue 
of Carnivorous, Pachydermatous, and Edentate Mammalia,’ 
but have quite failed to see that he has upset the conclusions 
arrived at upon this point by F. Cuvier, Cretzschmar, Owen, 
Sundevall, and Van der Hoeven. The localities marked on 
specimens in the British Museum are so frequently erroneous 
that no argument can be based upon them ; and besides, from 
what Sundevall has said *, it appears certain that both species 
oceur in South Africa, though ae not quite in the same 
district. I may add that Mr. Blanford, who recently examined 
the question when engaged upon his work on Abyssinian 
zoology, likewise came to the same conclusion, viz. that Dr. 
Gray had made a great mistake in attempting to unite these 
two well-marked speciesT. 
* (Efv. af K. Vet. Akad. Fórh. 1846, p. 121. 
t Blanford, Geology and Zoology of Abyssinia, p. 242. 
E 
COE 
