4 DE. C. J. rOESYTH MA JOE OlS THE 



Yalley. In the shore-deposits of the Pliocene sea, in the Lower 

 Avno Valley, and in other parts of Tnscany and central Italy, land 

 mammals are not unfrequently found and have been recorded by the 

 naturalists of the last two hundred 5-ears ; but their age could not be 

 determined without the systematic explorations of modern times. At 

 present no doubt can exist. The littoral marine Pliocene strata do 

 contain a mammalian fauna which is identical with that of the 

 upper valley of the Amo ; a study of the fossils contained in the 

 Tuscan museums, and of the excavations carried on by me at 

 Montopoli (in the marine Pliocene between Pisa and Florence), have 

 j)laced this beyond any doubt. 



§ 4. Relations to the Pleistocene Fauna. 



In the Postpliocene (Pleistocene) we find various connecting links 

 with the Pliocene fauna, although, at least in Italy, not a single species 

 of the older fauna seems to have gone over, as such, to the younger 

 fauna. TThikt the greater number of the Pleistocene (Quaternary) 

 mammaha are distinct from those of the Pliocene, that part of the 

 Pleistocene fauna which is often designated as the African division 

 of the same^ appears more nearly allied to it. This division should 

 perhaps more correctly be called the old indigenous. 



Piret of all, the Hyaenas and Pelines, Eyoina Perrieri and 

 Hyoina arvernensis from the lacustrine Pliocene of Auvergne and 

 of the Arno Yalley, stand so close to the Pleistocene Hyaenas, 

 H, croaata (spelcea) and H. prisca, that they may be considered their 

 ancestors ; and the same results will probably be obtained from a 

 careful comparison of the various Pliocene and Pleistocene 

 (Quaternary) kinds of Felis. 



The Pliinoceros etruscus, Falc, of the Arno Yalley more closely 

 resembles the Postpliocene JR. TiemitoscTius, Pale. (R. Merckii, pro 

 parte), than P. ticliorliinus^ although a study of the remains of 

 the two first-mentioned forms found in Italy does not justify the 

 assumption of some authors on the other side of the Alps that 

 they are identical species. With some practice it is always possible 

 to distinguish even isolated teeth of the upper jaw of the two forms. 

 "We often find Rliinoceros leptorJiinus cited as a Quaternary fossil ; 

 for example, Charles Mayer cites P. leptorhinus, together with. Ele- 

 ■plias meridionalis and Hip>popotamus major, as prototypes of the 

 Postpliocene fauna, or, more accurately, the fauna of the " Couches 

 do Cromer," the lowest stage of his Saharian zone. In this he 

 groups together the following strata : — Porest-bed of Cromer, sands 

 of St. Prest, and other French localities, lower moraines and 

 lacustrine chalk (SeeKreide) of IJtznach, Diirnten, and Y'etzikon in 

 Switzerland, and the sandy freshwater marls and ferruginous gravels 

 of the region of Asti and " Sansino " of the Arno Yalley. 



As regards the term Rhinoceros leptorhinus^ it has no value what- 

 ever as a proof of the synchronism of the above-named strata, as 

 several distinct sj)ecies of Rhinoceros have received this name ; 

 in the Forest-bed we have to do with R. hemitcechus, Falc, in the 



