2 PLEISTOCENE MAMMALIA. 
duced by diluyial action, and were not contemporaneous with the associated bear 
and hyena bones. ‘The earlier writers were disposed to doubt the identity of the 
canine bones found in caves with those of living species. Thus Goldfuss, who in 
1810 had figured ! the skull of a wolf from Miggendorf, when describing thirteen 
years later? (1823) a wolf’s skull from Gailenreuth, regarded it as specifically dis- 
tinct from Canis lupus. 
Cuvier,’ too (1812 and 1825), was apparently disposed to regard the wolf 
remains in his possession as specifically distinct from the modern species. He made 
further comparisons of the skeletal characters of wolves and dogs, and agreed with 
Daubenton * (1758) in recognising the extreme difficulty in distinguishing between 
the skull of a wolf and that of a dog. 
The first author to express himself decisively as to the identity of the fossil 
remains of the wolf with those of the living species was Schmerling*® (1833) in his 
description of bones from the caverns of Li¢ge. M. de Serres, Dubrueil, and 
Jeanjean ® (1839), though not expressing themselves very definitely, attributed the 
canine bones found in the caves of Lunel Viel to the living species. 
The question as to the specific identity of the recent and fossil species was, 
however, fully considered by de Blainville’ (1844), who, in his ‘ Ostéographie,’ 
discussed and summarised all the evidence, strongly supporting the view that no 
distinction could be drawn between the wolves, dogs, and foxes of the caves and 
those living at the present day. 
Owen, too, in his ‘ British Fossil Mammals and Birds’* (1846), in which a full 
account of the fossil Canidz was given, agreed that “the wolves which our 
ancestors extirpated were of the same species as those which . . . left their 
bones in the limestone caverns 
Since then almost all zoologists who have considered the subject have agreed 
as to the specific identity of the fossil remains of the wolf with those of the living 
species, but Pomel (1854) and Bourguignat as lately as 1875 maintained the con- 
trary view, the latter author retaining the name Canis spelxus of Goldfuss for the 
fossil wolves of the caverns. 
Meanwhile the bones of wolf and fox had been described from many British 
caves, such as Kirkdale (Buckland,’ 1822), where, however, they were very scanty, 
* «Die Umgebungen von Miiggendorf’ (Erlangen). 
‘Satigethiere der Vorwelt,’ p. 451. 
‘Oss. Foss.,’ tom. iv, iv, pp. 5—9 (1812), and ibid., ed. 3, tom. iv, pp. 457—467 (1825). 
* In Buffon’s ‘ Histoire Naturelle,’ tom. vii, p. 58. 
5 6 
2 
} 
techerches sur les Ossemens fossiles des Cavernes de Litge,’ tom. 1, pp. 22—46. 
a 
‘Recherches Oss. humatiles des Cavernes de Lunel Viel,’ pp. 72—74. 
‘ Ostéographie—Carnassiers,’ pp. 101—104. 
‘ British Fossil Mammals and Birds, p. 132. 
9 ¢ Phil. Trans.,’ exii, p. 182. 
~ 
ao 
