THE FOREST-BED OF EAST ANGLIA, LOT 
“La Seme’”’!, parts of two frontals, with the bases of the antlers, being figured. ‘These 
fossils appear to me to agree in all essential respects with the Pakefield specimen. 
The inclination of the antlers, the distance from one another of the pedicles, and in 
particular the position of the brow-tine agree in the two forms; the measurements 
correspond with a sufficient degree of accuracy; while it further appears from 
Belgrand’s plate xix. that the second tine of Cervus delyrandi does not originate in the 
same line with the brow-tine, but at a point 90° further forward than the line 
containing the base of the brow-tine, in exactly the way that is characteristic of 
C. verticornis. Pollig? regards the rudimentary condition of the brow-tine as a leading 
characteristic of C. belgrandi. Had he, however, copied Belerand’s representation of 
the right antler in pl. xviii., instead of that of the left antler, this condition would 
have been much less apparent; and in the specimen ? from ‘laubach which he himself 
figures (pl. xxiv. fig. 1) the brow-tine has essentially the characters of that of the 
Forest-Bed form. 
Cervus giganteus italie also shows some interesting resemblances to the Forest-Bed 
form. The specimens in the Museums of Milan and Arezzo figured by Pohlig + have 
a palmated crown which shows a distinct resemblance to the Pakefield specimen, from 
which they differ, however, in the larger development of the points of the crown and in 
having the brow-tine in the position characteristic of the typical C. giganteus. Part of 
the definition of this form given by Lydekker—the upward inclination of the palmation, 
the front border of which is curved inwardly so that much of the outer surface is seen 
in a front view, and the occurrence of the points of the crown near the summit of the 
palmation—will apply equally well to C. delgrandi. The general direction of the 
antlers, the beams of which spread out at first nearly horizontally, the palmated part 
then curving upwards, is again strikingly suggestive of that form. 
C. megaceros ruffii was named and figured by Nehring®, who calis attention to the 
absence of points on the anterior edge of the palmated part as an indication of affinity 
to (. dama, Although agreeing in this respect with C. belgrandi, it has already 
acquired long tines springing from the distal border of the crown in a manner 
suggestive of the Irish Deer. Some of the specimens of this race, for instance that 
from the Worms Museum figured by Pohlig (p. 222, figs. 4¢ and 4d), show a much 
closer approach to the Forest-Bed species, in the way in which the crown is set on to 
the beam and in the slight development of the terminal snags. 
The general conclusion seems to be that C. belgrandi is the most central type of the 
Giant Deer, showing as it does a distinct affinity to the Fallow-deer as well as to the 
+ “ Hist. Gén. de Paris. La Seine.—I. Le Bassin Parisien,” par E. Belgrand. ‘ Planches de Paléontologie,’ 
1869, p. 13, pls. xviiii—xx, * T. cit. p. 232. 
* I do not feel convinced that this really belongs to C. belgrandi. “ 7. cit. p. 228. 
* “Uber eine besondere Riesenhirsch-Rasse aus der Gegend yon Kottbus,” Sitzungsber. Ges. naturf, Fr. 
Berlin, 1891, p. 151. See also papers by the same author, “ Neue Notizen iiber Cervus megaceros, var. ruffii, 
Nhrg.,” ibid. 1892, p. 3; and * Deutsche Jiiger-Zeitung,’ xxxii. 1899, p. G31; xxxiii. 1899, p. 413. 
VoL. XV.— PART 1V. No. 4.—December, 1899. R 
