MB. G. BUSK ON THE EXISTING SPECIES OF HT^NA. 63 



tisli Museum, and 4447 in the College of Surgeons, with what he 

 himself had always regarded as M. hrunnea or fusca, M. Lartet, 

 on the occasion of my being about to visit Paris a short time 

 since, requested me to bring him casts of the dentition of the two 

 specimens in question. Time however only allowed me to pro- 

 cure that of the College of Surgeons specimen. Comparison of 

 this with specimens of S. crocuta, JEL. striata, and the true H. 

 hrunnea in M. Lartet's possession, showed at once that it belonged 

 to the first-named species, or at any rate to the same type, and 

 that it had nothing in common with S. hrunnea, except perhaps 

 its size. It was from this further evident also that we had no 

 known specimen of that species either in the British Museum or 

 the College of Surgeons. Under these circumstances on my 

 return to London bringing with me an excellent cast of the den- 

 tition of H. hrunnea, I took the first opportunity of making 

 a close examination and comparison of the various Hyena-crania 

 to which I had access. The comparison of the so-termed Sycena- 

 hrunnea skulls in the British Museum with those named S. 

 crocuta in the same collection, soon satisfied me that there was no 

 essential difiierence between them suificient to justify their specific 

 distinction. On further inquiry it also appeared that there was 

 no stufied skin belonging to either of the crania assigned to 

 H. hrunnea ; nor was I able to learn from Dr. Grray that there 

 were any grounds for attributing them to that species, beyond 

 the circumstance that they had been purchased as such at Mr. 

 "Warwick's sale. As they really appeared to difier very consider- 

 ably from the other two skulls which were certainly known to be- 

 long to the " Spotted Hyena," and as no materials were at hand for 

 comparison, no suspicion appears ever to have been entertained 

 that they were misnamed. But in consequence of this absence of 

 any proof that they belonged to H. hrunnea, and in the presence 

 of their absolute distinctness from that species as exemplified in 

 the cast I had brought from Paris, the conclusion appeared inevi- 

 table that the name under which they had been entered in the 

 Catalogue was erroneous. Had any doubt, however, remained on 

 this point, it would have been removed when Mr. Gerrard pro- 

 duced a skin of the veritable H. hrunnea, containing the skull. 

 But on examination of this specimen it appeared that the bones had 

 been detached from the skin, and then sewn up again in it. "When 

 removed it appeared that they had been cleaned ; and the name of 

 M. hrunea {sic) was written on both the cranium and the man- 

 dible, which latter, however, was found to belong to another in- 



