MB. Qt. BTJSK ON THE EXISTINa SPECIES OF HTiENA. 61 



of these fossil forms and their relations to existing Hyenas have 

 been very conflicting. Much of this uncertainty has doubtless 

 arisen from the imperfect nature of the materials which have 

 come before the different observers ; but we believe that it has 

 in a considerable measure been owing to the unsettled opinions 

 among zoologists respecting the number and affinities of the 

 living species, and to the imperfect state of knowledge regarding 

 their osteological distinctive characters, more especially in what 

 relates to the form of the cranium and teeth." He then proceeds 

 to observe, " We shall endeavour before entering upon the descrip- 

 tion of the Gribraltar fossil form to determine what the osteolo- 

 logical distinctions of the living species are." And it is very 

 deeply to be lamented that he did not live to carry out this useful 

 design, towards which the present remarks may be regarded as a 

 contribution. 



(2.) But before proceeding to the description of the differences 

 between H. striata and S. Irunnea, I should wish to be allowed to 

 say a few words on the circumstances which have more imme- 

 diately led to the confusion which exists with respect to H. 

 hrunnea, at any rate among English palaeontologists. As an 

 instance of this it may be stated that Dr. Falconer, than whom no 

 man justly stands higher as an authority in Mammalian Palaeon- 

 tology and Osteology, and my friend Mr. Boyd Dawkins, who 

 bids fair to become his worthy successor, have both assigned to 

 H. hrunnea three crania which most indubitably do not belong 

 to that species, nor even to the same subgenus, and in conse- 

 quence of this mistake have been induced to regard S. spelcea as 

 closely allied to if not identical with the "Strand Wolf" of the 

 Cape of Grood Hope ; and I may add that I was myself also 

 naturally led to the same conclusion. The way in which such 

 competent observers as Dr. Falconer and Mr. Boyd Dawkins 

 were led into this error, may, however, be very simply explained. 



The only materials, so far as I know, publicly available in Lon- 

 don for the study of the osteology of the cranium of the Hycena 

 are to be found in the British Museum and in the Eoyal CoUege 

 of Surgeons. 



In the former place they comprised, until lately, (1.) two skulls 

 of S. crocuta, numbered 1232 (a) and 1232 (V), and another so 

 named in the Palaeontological GraUery, numbered 37783 ; (2.) two 

 skuUs, one a good deal broken, named IS. hrunnea, and numbered 

 respectively 822 (o) and 822 (h) ; and (3.) a good many skulls of 

 H. striata. 



