146 PLEISTOCENE MAMMALIA. 
CHAPTER XVI. 
FELIS SPELZA, GOLDFUSS, SPECIFICALLY IDENTICAL WITH Frits Luo, LiInnavs. 
CONTENTS. 
§ 1. Introduction. | § 2. Various opinions held by naturalists. 
§ 3. Conclusion. 
§ 1. Introduction —lIn the preceding chapters we have analysed the differences 
observable in skeletons of Lion, Tiger, and Melis spelea, not founding our comparison on one 
skeleton merely of either of the former animals, but comparing and noting the variations 
in the form and proportion of the bones of all the individuals preserved in the museums 
of London and Oxford. One fertile source of error in the work of previous observers has 
been avoided—the use of the bones of animals kept in menageries, which are invariably 
affected in direct proportion to the length of the confinement of their possessors, and to 
the extent to which the natural habits have been restrained and curbed by domestication. 
They are so deformed, and, if the cub has been born in captivity, so small and puny, that 
they are absolutely useless as a means of comparison. Before we proceed to sum up the 
bearing of the evidence on the recent affinities of Felis spelea, we intend to quote the 
opinions of the naturalists in chronological order, following to a certain extent the method 
of M. de Blainville and Baron Cuvier. 
§ 2. Various opinions held by naturalists.—The first evidence of the discovery of 
Felis spelea is afforded by a figure’ of an unequal phalange, appended to a paper on the 
Dragons of the Carpathians, written by Dr. John Hain in 1672. It is most important, 
because it brings the range of the fossil animal into the Hungarian Basin of the Danube. 
Leibnitz, in 1749,” figured a fragment of skull obtained from the cavern of Schartzfeldt. 
The plate contains four rudely executed figures, of which the upper may represent the 
* Recognised by Cuvier (‘ Oss. Foss.,’ t. iv, p. 449, 2nd edit., 1822), and ascribed by him to Dr. 
Vollgnad (‘Ephém. Nat. Cur.,’ an. iv, dec. 1, obs. clxx, p. 227). The latter, however, merely gives an 
outline of a paper published in the preceding year by Dr. Hain (‘ Miscell. Nat. Cur. Medico-Physic. Germ.,’ 
An. III, Obs. CXXXIX. “De Draconibus Carpathicis ”’). 
2 *Protogzea,’ pl. xi, fig, 1, p. 62. 
