76 



MR. G. BUSK ON THE ANCIENT OR 



Table showing Dimensions of the Cranium and Teeth in Hymna. 



Gibraltar 

 specimen. 



H, speltsa. 



H. cTocuta 



(fera). 

 (Mean.) 



IL brunnea. H. striata. 

 (Mean.) (Mean.) 



1. Length from occipital crest to incisive border 



2. ,, „ condyles to incisive border . . . 



3. Width betTveen outsides of condyles 



4. Width of skull over auditory foramina 



5. Width of base of occipital triangle 



6. Height of „ „ 



7. Foramen magnum, vd. and trd 



8. Auditory bulla 



9. ITolar series 



10. Fm. 1 



11. Pm. 2 



12. Pm. ;j 



13. Pm. 4 



14. M. 1 



inches. 

 10-6 

 9-9 

 2-1 

 3-9 

 4-0 

 3-8 

 1-0 X -9 

 •2x-l 

 3-4 

 ■30 X -25 

 •72 X 51 

 1-05 X -72 

 1-50 X 80 



inches. 



10-8 

 '2-2 



3-7 



•33 X 32 



■68 X ^43 



1-00 X -73 



1-60x87 







inches. 



10-7 

 9^8 

 2^0 

 3^9 



3-34 

 •30 X ^27 

 •67x^50 

 ■94 X -70 

 1^46 X ^84 

 ■2x^1 



inches. 



10^1 



9^1 



2-0 



34 



3^12 

 •27x^25 

 ■68 X -46 

 ■93 X -85 

 1^42 X ^63 

 •51 X ^21 



nches. 

 9^0 

 8-2 

 1-6 

 3^1 



2^7 

 •23X-22 

 •62 X 40 



•80x52 



1^17x^70' 



■50x21 



The mere inspection of these numbers will be suflScient to show that the Gibraltar 

 fossil Hycena is in all essential particulai's, as regards cranial and dental measurements, 

 very closely in accord with Hycena crocuta and II. spelcea, whilst at the same time it 

 offers considerable differences from both II. brunnea and II. striata. Further examina- 

 tion only tends to prove that this similarity is real, and that the Hyena found in the 

 Genista Cave is, in fact, identical with the Spotted Hyena of Southern and Western 

 Africa, and quite distinct from the Striped Hyena of Western Asia and Northern 

 Africa. 



This conclusion is so contrary to what might have been expected, that when it was 

 forced upon us it could not fail to excite the greatest surprise and interest ; and 

 Dr. Falconer went into the question of the specific identification of the specimen with 

 his well-known acuteness and zeal. Unfortunately at that time there were no known 

 materials in London for studying the cranial and dental characters of Hycena brimnea, 

 although there were two skulls erroneously assigned to that species in the British 

 Museum ^ 



The consequence was that Dr. Falconer had no means of determining differences 

 between II. crocuta and H. brunnea, and was misled into the impression that the 

 Gibraltar Hycena was of the latter species. For the same reason he was induced to 

 regard the Hycena fusca of G. St.-Hilaire as distinct from //. brunnea, Thunb., and to 

 adopt the notion that //. maculata, Kaup, was distinct from H. crocuta, Erxl. (sp.). 



' A full account of the cause of this coofuBion will be found in my paper " On the Cranial and Dental Cha- 

 racters of the existing Species of Hyfena/' published in the Ljnnean iSooiety's Journal, Zoology, vol. ix. p. 59, 

 1866. 



