IIYy1^]NA crocuta. i 



11. spclccn ;iii(l //. crocuta. lie laid stress on the variable character of the tubercular 

 portion of the lower carnassial, and considered that several of the supposed species that 

 had been founded by Croizct and Jobert, and by de Serres, Dubriieil,. and Jeanjenn, 

 mainly on variations in this tooth, were not valid, but were varieties of the cave hycena 

 {vide 2)oslea). In his paper on the niaininal fauna of the Crcswell Crags,^ published in 

 1877, the same author says that, after comparison of the skulls of 11. crocala and //. 

 spelcca, he has been unable to detect points of difference of specific value, and definitely 

 states that he believes the two to be identical. 



Busk, however, writing in the same year,^ while recognising the close relationship 

 between the two forms, said that he did not consider it proved that //. i<j)chca was a 

 mere variety of //. crocuta. 



Since the publication of Boyd Dawkins' paper in 1863, almost all authors have 

 acce[)ted the view of the identity of the two forms. This has been done, for example, by 

 Newton^ (1883), Lydekker* (1884-5), Forsyth Major ^ (1885), Woodward and 

 Sherborn" (1890), Gaudry^ (189:2), and ZitteP (1893); so that the fact of their identity 

 may be considered to lie clearly established. Schlosser," however, expresses doubt as to 

 their identity, nuiinly on account of the geographical distribution of //. crocuta at the 

 present day. 



A later phase in the study of h\ienas has been the discussion of the mutual relation- 

 ships of the fossil forms, and the probable ancestry of the living ones. This subject has 

 been most fully dealt with by Lydekker,^" Schlosscr,'' and Gauclry,' Lydekker, basing 

 his opinion largely on its occurrence in the Pleistocene Caves of Karnul, in the Madras 

 Presidency, considers that Uijana crocuta originated in India, being derived from the 

 Siwalik (Lower Pliocene) llyccna Colvini, Lyd. The lower carnassials of the two forms 

 agree closely, especially as regards the development of the cingulum, differing chiefly in 

 the relatively large development of the hind talon in //, Colvini. Schlosser derives the 

 cave hyaena, and eventually Jl. crocuta, from the Up[)er Pliocene //. Perrieri of Croizet 

 an.l Jobert. He derives //. Perrieri from an unknown form whose nearest ally was //. 

 sivaleusis, and he regards //. Colvini as altogether off the line of descent in question. 

 Gaudry also derives //. crocuta (including the cave hya:na) from //. Perrieri, but ex|/ressly 

 states that he has not taken account of the Indian species, not being personally 

 accpiainted with their fossil remains. The subji'ct of the mutual relationship of the 

 different species of hyyena lies, however, too much beyond the scop:; of the [)resent 

 monograph to be fully dealt with. 



1 ' Q. J. Geol. Soc.,' xxxiii, p. 59G. - ' Trans. ZdoI. S .c.,' x (2), p. 53. 



■5 ' Geol. Mag.,' 1883, p. 433. 



* 'Pal. ludica,' ser. 10, ii, p. 275 ; ' Catal. Yoa-i. Mauim. Brit. Mus.,' i, p. 69. 



» ' Q. J. Geol. Soc ,' xli, p. 1. '' 'Catal. Brit. Foss. VorL,' 



7 'Mater. Hist. Temps Quat.' (1-J, [>. IIG. '^ 'Haiidb. PaliBout.,' iv, p. GGl. 



'J ' Beitr. Pal. Oiterroicli-Uiigariis,' iii, p. 29. "' ' Pal. Iirlie i,' ser. 10, ii, p. 310. 



