prof. w. boyd dawkins on aildeus anglicus. 231 



Discussion. 



The President remarked that seldom had a fact of greater interest 

 in its bearing upon geographical distribution in past times been 

 brought before the Society. 



Mr. Ltdekkee said that he had not much doubt as to the correctness 

 of the identification ; at any rate, the fossil seemed to indicate a genus 

 closely allied to Ailurus. As shown by the molar, it could not 

 apparently belong to any other group, no known Artiodactyle being 

 like it. He rather differed as to the question of range. There is no 

 trace of Ailurus in the Miocene or Upper Eocene of Europe, and he 

 thought it more probable that the genus had reached Europe from 

 India whilst missing Africa. 



Prof. Seelet said that although the tooth was worn, he considered 

 that its crown was traversed by two longitudinal parallel grooves, 

 defining three rows of denticles or cusps, while in Ailurus there 

 was only a median groove between the denticles. He considered 

 that the mode of grouping of the denticles in the recent and fossil 

 types was different, so as to suggest even greater divergence in the 

 other teeth which were not preserved. Differences of this kind were 

 usually regarded as generic, and might have a family value. They 

 are supported by differences in the coronoid process, in the way in 

 which it arises, and in the form of the bony substance of the jaw. The 

 fossil specimen was one third larger. So that, while he regarded 

 the affiliation to Ailurus as a legitimate indication of afiinity, he 

 thought that the facts justified caution in making a generic deter- 

 mination, and that this was the more necessary if new views on 

 geographical distribution were based upon the interpretation. 



Mr. Newton, while admitting that it is desirable to be cautious 

 before giving names, said he could find nothing like this tooth in the 

 Crag, while its agreement with the corresponding tooth of Ailurus 

 was very close indeed, excepting in the unimportant matter of size. 

 With regard to the distribution, he referred to the Gazelle from the 

 Upper Crag, which also found its nearest allies in Asiatic rather than 

 in African forms. 



Mr. Blaneoed expressed his surprise at the discovery. The fact 

 of the tooth being worn was of no importance. There was not much 

 to be inferred from the Gazelle mentioned by Mr. Newton, as it 

 represented an entirely different fauna. Ailurus was now con- 

 fined to the Eastern Himalaya, and was, in fact, an Asiatic 

 raccoon. If this fossil was really Ailurus, the range of the raccoons 

 must have been more extended, and yet no other fossil species had 

 been found in the Old World, nor was there any representative of 

 Ailurus in Africa. On the evidence, Prof. Dawkins was possibly 

 right ; but one tooth was not much to go upon ; and, on the whole, 

 the determination would require confirmation. 



