112 E. T. Newton — Hamstey from the Norfolk Forest Bed. 



from the living Cricetiis vulgaris. M. C. Deperet ' has described two 

 lower jaw rami of a Cricetus from the Pliocene of Perpignan under 

 the name of Cricetus angustidens.- These are said to agree as nearly 

 as possible with the living C. vulgaris^ but the species is distinguished 

 by the narrowness of the anterior molar tooth and by the obliquity of 

 the tubercles, which are compressed and directed forwards so as to join 

 the external tubercle of the pair next in front ; also the two anterior 

 tubercles are small. It is obvious that the structure of these teeth is 

 unlike what obtains in the ' Forest Bed ' specimen. 



Dr. Nehring,^ in the paper above referred to, discusses the affinities 

 of the larger and smaller species of Cricetus found in the Pleistocene 

 deposits of various localities in Middle and "Western Europe, and 

 draws special attention to the large jaws described and named by 

 Dr. Woldrich * Cricetus frumentarius major. These large specimens 

 seem to agree very closely in size with our ' Forest Bed ' form, but 

 the series of upper grinders are not quite so large. Dr. Woldrich 

 gives the alveolar measurements of his two largest specimens as 

 8'8 and 9'5 mm. The same measurement of the * Forest Bed ' specimen 

 is 10 '3 mm. The desci'iption of these large Plamsters is not sufficiently 

 detailed to allow of a close comparison with the peculiarities observed 

 in the ' Forest Bed ' example, and the figures of the teeth are not large 

 enough to give the smaller details of structure ; it seems, however, 

 from Dr. "Woldfich's figure (loc. cit., pi. ii, fig. 23), that the anterior 

 tubercles of the front tooth are somewhat narrower than the others. 



Dr. !Nehring (loc. cit., p. 185) seems to think Dr. Woldi'ich hardly 

 justified in giving the subspecific title C. frumentarius major to these 

 fossil forms, as he says there is much variation in size among living 

 Hamsters ; but, according to Dr. Nehring's own measurements, no 

 recent Hamster has attained to the size of Dr. Woldrich's fossils, and 

 Dr. JSTehring himself includes them under his own subspecies C. vulgaris 

 fossilis. If a third name is to be used, that of Dr. Woldrich should be 

 adopted. 



During the last few years several living forms of Cricetus have been 

 described and provided with subspecific or race names, but for the 

 most part tliese are distinguished by external characters, and make 

 no nearer approach to our fossil than does the common Hamster itself. 

 I am not aware that any fossil Hamsters have been described other 

 than those already alluded to ; but there are two or three papers ^' ^' ' 



^ " Les Animaux pliocenes clu Roussillon " : Mem. Soc. Geol. France, 1890, 

 vol. i, Mem. No. 3, p. 54. 



2 See also Dr. Woldrich, " Uebersicht der "Wirblethierefauua des Bolimischen 

 Massivs -wahrend der anthropozoisclien Epoclie" : Jahrb. k.k. geol. Reichsanst., 1897, 

 Eand xlvii, p. 393. 



3 See note 2, p. Ill, 



* " Diluviale Fauna von Zuzlawitz bei "Winterberg im Bohmerwalde " : Sitzb. d. 

 k. Akad. d. Wiss. in Wien, 1880, Band Ixxxii, p. 30. 



5 J. Kafke, " Eecente und Fossile Nagetbiere Bobems" : Arch. Landesdf. Bohem, 

 1893, vol. viii, No. 5. 



^ J. Niiesch, "Das Schweizersbild, eine Niederlassung aus •paliiolithischer und 

 neolithiscber Zeit " : Denkscbr. schweiz. Gesellsch. Naturw., 1896, Band xxxr, 

 pp. 1-334. 



"> Dr. A. Nehring, " Ueber die pleistocane Fauna der Belgischen Holen": Sitz. 

 Gesellsch. Naturf. Freunde, Berlin, 1897, p. 74. 



