FELIS SPELAA. 147 
parietals and part of the occipitals of a Lion, while those underneath may be the fore part of 
the upper and lower jaws, of the same animal; but it is very possible that the originals 
may have belonged to the Bear. The whole are referred to in the text as “vera elephan- 
tium ossa,” the upper part of the head being taken for the “tibia” of the Elephant. The 
fragment of skull is compared by Soemmerring’ with the skulls of Lion and Ursus speleus. 
He considers that it differs in no respect from the former animal; but he adds that in 
most of the points relied upon it resembles other species of the genus Felis. He gives a 
more exact figure than that of Leibnitz. 
In 1774 Esper’ published an account of the mammals found in the Margraviat of 
Bareith, in which he figures an upper jaw from Gailenreuth. He obtained also detached 
teeth and bones. He believes them to belong to an unknown animal, more closely allied 
to the Lion than any other species. Rosenmiiller,? in 1804, states that he is about to 
publish a work on an unknown fossil animal of the genus Felis, and he adds that its bones 
differ in some respects from the Lion. Dr. Goldfuss* published, in 1810, a small work 
on the environs of Muggendorf, in which a nearly perfect skull from the cave of Gailen- 
reuth was figured and described under the name of Felis spelea, which was adopted by 
Cuvier, and became the recognised specific name of the animal. In 1821* he republished his 
determi nation of the species, and gave a full-sized figure of the skull, which he considered 
to belong to an extinct species, more closely allied to the Panther than to Lion or Tiger. 
Drs. Pander and D’Alton® state, in 1822, that Felis spelea differs specifically from 
Felis /eo, and refer to their figures in support of this conclusion. The figures, which are 
those of a skull and lower jaw, exhibit no sutures. The second premolar of the upper 
jaw is bifanged, as in the skull from Sandford Hill Cave (PI. XI, fig. 1). There are no 
measurements of the skull given in the text, nor is any information afforded as to the 
museum in which it is preserved. 
Baron Cuvier, in the second edition of the ‘Ossemens Fossiles,” published in 1823, 
does not pronounce a decided opinion on the relation of Felis spelea to the large existing 
members of the genus, because he was unable to make a personal -inspection of the type 
specimens described by Dr. Goldfuss; but he states his belief that the real affinities of 
the animal are neither with the Lion nor the Tiger, but with the Jaguar (felis onca), giving 
as his principal reasons the gentle curve of the profile and the form of the lower jaw.* 
' «Magasin pour l‘Histoire Nat. de Homme’ de M. C. Grosse,’ t. iii, cah. 1, No. 3, p. 60; Cuvier, 
op. cit. We cannot verify this reference. 
2 «Description des Zoolithes, &c., dans la Margraviat de Bareith,’ folio, Nuremburg,’ 1774, tab. ix, xii, 
p. 53. 
5 «Abbildungen und Beschreibung der fossilen Knochen des Hohlenbiren,’ folio; fig. 1, pp. 11, 19; 
Weimar, 1804. 
4 “Die Umgebungen von Muggendorf,’ Erlangen, 1810. 
> © Nova Acta Physico-Medica Acad. Cees.-Leop. Cur.,’ tom. x, p. 489, tab. 45, 1821. 
6 «Die Skelete der Raubthiere,’ tab. viii, a, 6, c, d, 1822. 
7 Tom. iv, pp. 451—455. ° See ‘ Felis spelea,’ cap. i; eap. vi, § 20. 
