108 ME. G. BUSK ON THE ANCIENT OE 



4. That, although in general the osteological characters are nearly identical with 

 those of B. hemitceclms, there are some differences, more especially in the astragalus, 

 which it appears difficult to account for. 



5. That, whether identical or not with R. hemitceclms, it cannot possibly be referred 

 to R. megarhinns, Christol, R. etruscus, Falc, or R. hicornis, the only other species 

 about which there could be any question. 



IX. Cervus. 



Cervine remains abound in the breccia of Gibraltar. The predominance of rumi- 

 nants was observed by John Hunter ^ in such of the specimens as were examined by 

 him ; and among the few which passed under his hand Cuvier identified two species of 

 Cervus — one resembling the Fallow Deer, the other a larger form, which he regarded 

 as being unknown in the existing Eui'opean fauna ". 



Some of the paleontologists who have described the contents of the Bone-caves of 

 the south of France have extravagantly multiplied the species of extinct Deer upon 

 the most trifling grounds. Amongst these M. Marcel de Serres was preeminent ; of 

 the cervine remains occurring in the caves of Lunel-Yiel and Bize he has contrived to 

 distinguish no less than ten extinct forms, to eight of which he gave specific names 

 that merely serve to cumber the records of paleontology, since the majority of them 

 appear to belong merely to varieties of the common or the Barbary Stag, or the Rein- 

 deer I 



The Genista cave and fissure have yielded a considerable number of cervine bones 

 derived from nearly all parts of the skeleton. But of the antlers there are only a few 



name of leptorhinus, Ow., has gained very extensive adoption, is employed in the British Museum, and has, 

 moreover, heen accepted, as I conceive, with fair reason, by Prof. Boyd Dawkins (Quart. Journ. Geol. Soc. xsiii. 

 1867, p. 217), it seems to me that it would be convenient and proper if palaeontologists could agree upon its 

 definitive adoption. A further reason might also now be given for the rejection of Dr. Falconer's appellation, 

 in the circumstance that it is anatomically incorrect, since it has been fully shown by Mr. W. Davies, in his 

 excellent description of the Brady Collection (Catalogue of Pleistocene Vertebrata from the neighbourhood of 

 Ilford, 187-1, p. 30), that the smaller Rhinoctros of the Thames-valley had in all probability as complete an 

 osseous septum as R. tichorhimis itself. 



Nowithstanding my great respect, or even veneration, for any opinion of the lamented M. Lartet, I am 

 unable to accept R. mercJcii, Kaup, as the equivalent of R. hemitoschtis, seeing, if for no other reason, that the 

 tvi)ical specimens of the teeth of R. merchii procured from Dr. Kaup himself are in the British Museum, and 

 are indisputably those of R. megarhinus, Christol. Dr. Kaup, in fact, must have confounded more than one 

 species under the term R. merehii. 



' PhU. Trans. 1794, p. 408. ' L. c. vol. iv. p. 173. 



• 'Cavemes de Lunel-Viel,' 1839, p. 173 ; and ' Cavernes de I'Aude,' 1839, p. 103. 



