316 DR. C. J. FORSYTH MAJOR ON FOSSIL GIRAFFID-E. [May 5, 



We shall consider on the present occasion how far the prediction 

 has been fulfilled, and see at the same time that the authors of the 

 * Fauna Antiqua Sivalensis' have themselves contributed to realize 

 their anticipation. 



1. GiRAFFA. 



First, as to the forms ascribed to the genus Girafa itself. There 

 is one species which for nearly 50 years has haunted palgeontological 

 papers, from which it is high time that it should disappear. This 

 is the Giraffa {Camelopardalis) biturigum, Duv., said to come from a 

 Tertiary deposit at Issoudun near Lyons \ Anyone who examines 

 ■with a little attention this supposed fossil, now preserved in the 

 Museum of the Jardin des Plantes, may perceive at once that we 

 have before us no fossil whatever, but the mandibular ramus of a 

 recent specimen of Giraffa camelopardalis. It was found at the 

 bottom of a dry well in the courtyard of a house belonging to a 

 chemist, and it seems to have found its way from the apothecary's 

 shop to the place where it was discovered, in order to render it more 

 valuable. 



Besides this spurious fossil, half a dozen Tertiary forms have been 

 ascribed to the genus Giraffa. The family is beyond doubt ; but 

 though we cannot for the moment assign them to any other genus 

 than Giraffa, this reference ought, in my opinion, to be considered as 

 provisional. In Palteontology, even when we assign a generic name 

 to some form imperfectly represented, it is with the reserve, though 

 sometimes unexpressed, that more complete finds will modify the 

 original opinion. 



The form which appears to have the best claims to rank as a 

 species of the genus Giraffa is the Giraffa sivalensis (Falc. & Cautl.), 

 with which we have been made more thoroughly acquainted by 

 Lydekker's description ^ founded both on teeth and bones, and lead- 

 ing to the conclusion that the Siwalik Giraffes were constructed on 

 the same plan as the living species. Even in this case I would not 

 be too positive as to the genus, the skull being unknown, and the 

 reference of the bones and teeth to one and the same form, though 

 very probable, not being beyond all doubt. 



1 Duvernoy," Sur une machoire do girafe fossile decouverte a Issoudun (dep. 

 de rindre)," Notes communiquees a I'Acad. des Sciences, seauces du 15 mai et 

 du 27 novembre 1844 ; id. Ann. Se. Kat. 3<^ serie, t. i. p. 136, pi. 2 (1843). See 

 also on the same subject : — 



H. Falconer and P. T. Cautley, " On some Fossil Eemains of Anoplotheriian 

 and Giraflfe, from the Sewalik Hills," Proc. Geol. Soc. of London, no. 98, 1844, 

 postscript. — Blainville,' Osteographie,' Atlas, Genre Camelopardalis, pi. ii. {Caim- 

 lopardalis hituriguM). — Gervais, ' Zoologie et Paleontologie fran^.,' deux, ed., 

 Paris, 1859, p. 142. — A. Gaudry, ' Comptes Rendus de I'Academie des Sciences,' 

 vol. xl. p. 802 ; seance du 26 liovembre, I860.— E. Owen. ' Palasontology,' 2nd 

 edit., Edinburgh, 1861, p. 409.— A. Gaudry, ' Aniuiaux fossiles et Geologie de 

 I'Attique,' Paris, 1862, pp. 249, 250.— L. Eiitimeyer, "Beitrage zu einer natiirl. 

 Gesehichte der Hirsche," Abh. d. schweiz. palaontol. Gesellsch. vol. viii. Erster 

 Theil, p. 73 (Ziirich, 1881).— K. Lydekker, Mem. Geol. Survey of India, ser. x. 

 Indian Tert. and Post-tert. Vertebr. vol. ii. pp. 102, 111 (Calcutta, 1884). j( 



= R. Lydekker, I. c. vol. ii. pp. 103, 112. 



