62 PLEISTOCENE MAMMALIA. 



§ 20. Summary. — We have compared each bone of the head in detail, in order that the 

 resemblances and the diflFerences between Lion, Tiger, and Felis spelaa, should be 

 thoroughly, as far as lay in ouj power, examined and exhausted. We subjoin a summary 

 of our observations of the characters, dividing them into those we consider constant, and 

 those that we have found to be mere tendencies. 



Professor Owen, in the 'Proceedings of the Zoological Society,' January, 1834, 

 enumerates the first of the three following points : — 1, The prolongation backwards of the 

 frontal (nasal) processes of the maxillary bones in the lion, at least as far back as the 

 transverse line passing through the fron to-nasal articulation; whereas, in the tiger, the former 

 always falls short of the latter by at least one-third of an inch. In the tiger, also, the frontal 

 processes of the maxillary are truncated, in the lion pointed. 2. The form of the nasal 

 aperture, which we describe somewhat differently from the mode of expression adopted by 

 Professor Owen ; this difference is also noted by M. de Blainville. 3. The greater flatness 

 of the frontal ends of the nasal bones in lion, which in the tiger are bent downwards, so 

 as to form a median depression at the symphysis. 4. Baron Cuvier points out the 

 greater flatness, and generally speaking the greater width of the inter-orbital space of the 

 frontal bones in the lion, an observation which is confirmed by Professor Owen ; the latter, 

 however, does not consider this character as constant. We consider that, with the 

 qualifications expressed in our description of the frontals, the skulls of the two species may 

 be distinguished by this character alone. An examination of a very large series of fehne 

 skulls has convinced ns, that these four points are strictly typical, and we have always been 

 able to distinguish the skulls of lion or tiger by any one of them taken by itself. We 

 have also remarked the following points : 5. The smaller temporal length of the frontals, 

 and consequent forward position of the parietal suture, and backward position of the post- 

 orbital process in the lion as compared with the tiger. This arrangement causes the 

 leonine skull, when looked at from above, to assume what may be readily understood as a 

 short-waisted aspect in contradistinction to the long waisted aspect of the tigrine. It 

 also causes the great extension of the sagittal crest on the frontals in the adult tiger com- 

 pared with its shortness in the lion. Baron Cavier appears to have recognised this 

 difference, though he expresses it very differently. 6. The comparatively shorter space 

 between the posterior palatal foramen and the orbital edge of the palate in lion. This 

 measurement must always be compared with the basal length of the skull to arrive at a 

 true conclusion. 7. The presence of the ramal process pointed out in Chapter I is an 

 essential character of the lion. 8. To these perhaps may be added the presence of the 

 tentorial spine in the tiger and its absence in the lion. 



We have also observed that the following tendencies are evinced by the two animals, 

 which are not sufficiently constant to be regarded in the light of absolute specific cha- 

 racters. 1. Baron Cuvier mentions the "serpentine form of the profile" as peculiar to the 

 tiger, the more rectilinear profile to the lion, and the gentle curve to FeJis speleea. We 

 cannot admit that any of these characters are of specific value. 2. M. de Blainville's distinc- 



