2 PLEISTOCENE MAMMALIA. 



The first full account of the cave hyaena was that given by G. Cuviei' in 18L2.' He 

 mentioned a nunihcr of Continental localities in which bones of hy?cnas had been found, 

 and considered that the fossil hyosna was distinct from any living species, basing his 

 opinion at that time mainly on the great size of many of the fossil bones. 



The occnrrence of the cave hyoena in England was first clearly established by Dean 

 Buckland in his account of the Kirkdale Cavc.^ The full title of this important paper, 

 which was published in LS:22, is " Account of an Assemblage of hossil Teeth and Bones 

 of Elephant, Rhinoceros, Hippopotamus, Bear, Tiger, Hyaena, aud sixteen other Animals 

 discovered in a Cave at Kirkdale, Yorks, in the year 1821, with a Comparative View of 

 five similar Caverns in various parts of England, and others on the Continent." In this 

 paper, and in his ' Reliquiae Diluvianac' (1824), he clearly showed that the caves iu which 

 the hyoena bones were found were the actual dens of the animals. 



Buckland's discovery of hyaena remains at Kirkdale was closely followed by Clift 

 and Whidbey's discovery of them at Oreston, near Plymouth.^ 



Goldfuss,* writing in 1823, was the first to apply the distinctive name Ili/ana speJaa 

 to the cave hyaena. He gave a detailed comparison with figures and measurements of 

 the bones of the cave species and of the spotted hyaena. 



1\\ the second edition of the ' Osscmens Eossiles ' (1823), Cuvier, in giving a further 

 account of the cave hyaena, referred specially to what he held to be the differences 

 between it and the spotted hyaena, and mentioned, with regard to the metacarj)als 

 and metatarsals, that all the bones measured were, without exception, shorter and 

 thicker in the cave hyaena than in the spotted hyrena. With regard to the teetli, however, 

 the general tendency of his remarks iuiplies that it is imj)ossible to distinguish those of 

 the one from those of the other. 



Meanwhile the discovery and study of hyaena remains w^ere actively pursued on the 

 Continent, and a number of new species of hyaena, some allied to the living //. crocata 

 and some to the living //. striata, were described l)y Croizet and Jobert' (1828), and by 

 Marcel de Serres, Uubrueil, and Jeanjean" (1839). Throughout the first half of the 

 nineteenth century little doubt apparently was felt by palosontologists that the cave 

 hysena was distinct from the spotted hyaena. Thus de Blainville^ (1814), Pictet ^ 

 (184-4), and Owen'-' (1840) all accej)ted this view. De Blainville discusses ihe question 

 in detail [vide post ea), and bases his opinion mainly on the form of the upper molar. 



The first palaeontologist to express strong doubts as regards the specific distinction 

 of the cave and the spotted hyaenas was Gaudry ^° (1863), but J^oyd Dawkiiis," writing 

 in 1865, was the first definitely to conclude that no distinction could be drawn between 



1 'Oss. Foss.,' ed. 1, iv. -' < pi^ji Trans.,' cxii (1), p. 171. 



3 'Phil. Trans.,' cxiii, p. 88. * ' Saiig. Vorw.,' vi. 



^ ' Oss. Foss. Piiy tie Dome.' " ' Oss. Luuel Viel.' 



7 ' Osteograpliic,' livr. 14. » ' Traite Paleont.,' i, p. 180. 



« ' Brit. Foss. Mamm.,' pp. 1:38—160. i" ' Bull. Soc. Geol. France ' (2), xx, p. 404. 



" ' Nat. Hist. Eev.,' n. s., v, p. 80. 



