1622 Quadrupeds. 



1st. They are larger than the skulls of the female, and they agree in 

 size with those of the male. But to this it may be objected that they 

 may have belonged to a different variety, and that probably the indi- 

 viduals increased in size under that state of domestication in which 

 they are supposed to have been fattened, and knocked down by the 

 butcher, when wanted for the feast. 



The argument from agreement of size with the male's skull, it is 

 true, will only have force if it concur with other and more conclusive 

 correspondences. The skull of the male Megaceros is not only gen- 

 erally larger than that of the female, but particular parts are dispro- 

 portionately increased in express relation to its power of sustaining the 

 enormous antlers, the weight of which ranges between 70 lbs. and 90 

 lbs. of osseous matter. 



2nd. The occiput or back-part of the skull, for example, into which 

 were implanted the strong muscles and powerful elastic ligaments, 

 serving to bear up the head and its ponderous weapons, is not only 

 absolutely broader in the male than in the female, but is considerably 

 broader in proportion to the length of the skull : its ridges are 

 stronger, its depressions deeper. 



3rd. Again, the vertical plate of bone descending from the outside 

 of the supporting surface of the antler to the zygomatic arch, and 

 forming the back part of the socket for the eye, is twice as broad in the 

 male as in the female Megaceros. And why ? Because it helps to 

 sustain the weight of the antlers. 



Now, on comparing the two, so-called, fractured female skulls with- 

 out horns, in Mr. Nolan's collection, with an entire and indubitable 

 female skull, and with two unbroken skulls of the male ; the fractured 

 skulls, supposed to be female, presented these peculiar sexual charac- 

 ter's of the male's skull, and many other modifications which relate to 

 the existence of antlers, and which, as they would be appreciated 

 chiefly by the physiologist, 1 will not further trouble your readers 

 with. 



" Facts," Mr. Editor, as you will observe, "are stubborn things," and 

 those which I have the honor to submit to you, are conclusive with 

 me against the domesticity of the Megaceros, so far as that hypothe- 

 sis is founded on the supposed " discovery of two undoubted female 

 skulls, fractured in the sauie manner as the butchers of the present 

 day slaughter cattle." 



I remain, Sir, your obedient servant, 



Richard Owen. 



