64 MR. R. LYDEKKER ON THE OCCCTRRENCE OF THE 



The slight clifFerences in these measurements are well within the 

 limits of individual variation. With regard to the actual contour 

 of the fossil and recent teeth, I can find absolutely no difference in 

 them, whether I compare the Val d'A.rno or the lied Crag example 

 with the recent jaw. Thus in all these teeth the inner tubercle is 

 very large, and does not extend so far forward as the anterior 

 border of the first lobe, while the upper border of the crown of the 

 external surface of the third lobe is characterized by its sharp 

 downward deflection, thus rendering the enamel on the hinder part 

 of this surface of ver}^ small extent. The outer surface of this third 

 lobe is also characteiized by the distinct median vertical groove. 

 The true molar in the Val d'Arno specimen is represented only by 

 a minute fragment, which does not indicate its original contour. 

 The tliird premolar is likewise exceedingly imperfect, but the por- 

 tion remaining accords with the corresponding tooth of H. striata. 



In the absence therefore of any difference between the Yal 

 d'Arno specimen and the cori^esponding portion of the jaw of the 

 Striped Hy?ena there appears every reason for referring the fossil 

 to that species. 



Comparing the British-Museum specimen with the upper jaws of 

 the hyeenas from the Val d'Aj-no figured by Dr. Weithofer, it will 

 bo at once apparent that it has nothing to do with H. robustrt, of 

 which the upper carnassial is represented in pi. ii. fig. 3 and pi. iv. 

 fiig. 1 of the memoir cited, that species being, indeed, as Dr. Weit- 

 hofer points out, closely allied to the crocutine H.felhia of the 

 Siwaliks. Compared with the upper carnassial of the specimen re- 

 presented in pi. ii. figs. 1, 2 of Dr. Weithofer's memoir under the 

 name of H. topariensis^ there is, indeed, a somewhat nearer resem- 

 blance, although there are well-marked specific differences. Thus 

 the length of the upper carnassial of H. topariensis is 0*034, while 

 its inner tubercle is relatively smaller, and extends as far forward 

 as the anterior border of the first lobe. Again, in the third lobe of 

 the carnassial of H. topariensis the upper border of the outer surface 

 of the crown is not deflected, so that there is a large surface of 

 enamel in this part of the tooth, while there is not the distinct 

 vertical groove found in H. striata. Most of these differences are, 

 indeed, noticed by Dr. Weithofer when he contrasts the carnassial 

 of H. topariensis with the specimen from the Red Crag above men- 

 tioned ; and he observes that the two are altogether different. 



In describing the specimens figured as H. topariensis^ Dr. Weit- 

 hofer regards them as closely allied to, if not identical with, H. 

 Perrieri of the French Pliocene ; and it appears to me that there 

 can be little doubt that the French and Italian specimens belong 

 to a single species, for which the latter name should be retained. 

 If this be so, we have evidence that //. Perrieri is markedly distinct 

 from H. crocuta, with which it has been compared, and is, appa- 

 rently, more nearly allied to H. brimnea^ as Dr. Weithofer suggests 

 in the description of his sjDCcimens. H. Perrieri (topariensis) is, 

 indeed, distinguished from //. hnmnen by the presence of an an- 

 terior talon to the last lower premolar, and by the absence of the 



