A NEW LIVING SPECIES OF HIPPOPOTAMUS. 237 



3. H. (Tet.) AMPHiBius, Linn. Africa. Existing. 



H. SENEGALENSIS, " '* 



H. cAPENsis, And. " " . 



4. H. (Tet.) ANNECTEUS. Africa. Fossil. 



5. H, (Tet.?) MINOR, Cuv. Europe. Fossil. 



6. H. (Tet.) LiBERiENSis, Morton. Western Africa. Existinnr. 



Subgenus 2. Hexaprotodon. 



7. H. (Hex.) iRAVATicus, India. Fossil. 



8. H. (Hex.) sivalensis. India. Fossil. 



9. H. (Hex.) NAMADicus. India. Fossil. 



Genus 2. MERYCOPOTAMUS. 

 M. DissiMiLis. Fossil. India. H. F." 



In addition to the preceding remarks of Dr. Falconer, I submit the followino- in 

 further explanation : 



The first attempt to divide the Hippopotamus amphibius of Linneus, was made by 

 M. Desmoulins in Magendie's Journal de Physiologic for 1825. This able naturalist, 

 after comparing the head and parts of the skeleton of the Hippopotamus of Senegal 

 with that of the Cape, came to the conclusion that the two animals were specifically 

 distinct. On this subject I shall only remark, that I possess two adult heads from 

 the Cape, and the Academy's collections contain two others from Senegal ; and that 

 on comparing them, I find the Cape specimens to differ as much from each other as 

 either of them does from those of the rivers of Senegal. If, however, they should 

 prove distinct, the courtesies of science require that the specific name amphihiiis be 

 retained for one of them, and to that of Senegal in preference, because it has been 

 best known to naturalists, and has consequently served as the basis of most 

 descriptions. 



In D'Orbigny's Dictionnaire d'Historie Naturelle, M. Boitard has elaborately 

 investigated this question. He details the two species proposed by M. Desmoulins, 

 and adds that M. Lesson had proposed the name of H. Abyssinius for the animal 

 inhabiting the upper Nile ; but M. Boitard does not adopt these specific designations. 



This department of science has yet more recently been investigated by M. 

 Duvernay, whose facts and conclusions are published in the Compte Rendu des 

 Seances de I'Academie des Sciences, for October, 1846. It may sufiice on the present 

 occasion to observe, that M. Duvernay's observations are favourable to the 

 specific distinctions proposed by M. Desmoulins ; he regards the Abyssinian animal 

 as of the same species with that of Senegal, but maintains the specific distinctness 



