﻿2 PLEISTOCENE MAMMALIA. 



The first full account of the cave hyaena was that given by G. Cuvier in 1812. 1 He 

 mentioned a number of Continental localities in which bones of hyaenas had been found, 

 and considered that the fossil hyaena was distinct from any living species, basing his 

 opinion at that time mainly on the great size of many of the fossil bones. 



The occurrence of the cave hyaena in England was first clearly established by Dean 

 Buckland in his account of the Kirkdale Cave. 2 The full title of this important paper, 

 which was published in 1822, is "Account of an Assemblage of Fossil Teeth and Bones 

 of Elephant, Rhinoceros, Hippopotamus, Bear, Tiger, Hyaena, and sixteen other Animals 

 discovered in a Cave at Kirkdale, Yorks, in the year 1821, with a Comparative View of 

 five similar Caverns in various parts of England, and others on the Continent." In this 

 paper, and in his ' Reliquiae Diluvianae' (1824), he clearly showed that the caves in which 

 the hyaena bones were found were the actual dens of the animals. 



Buckland's discovery of hyaena remains at Kirkdale was closely followed by Clift 

 and Whidbey's discovery of them at Oreston, near Plymouth. 3 



Goldfuss, 4 writing in 1823, was the first to apply the distinctive name Iiycena spelaa 

 to the cave hyaena. He gave a detailed comparison with figures and measurements of 

 the bones of the cave species and of the spotted hyaena. 



In the second edition of the ' Ossemens Eossiles ' (1823), Cuvier, in giving a further 

 account of the cave hyaena, referred specially to what he held to be the differences 

 between it and the spotted hyaena, and mentioned, with regard to the metacarpals 

 and metatarsals, that all the bones measured were, without exception, shorter and 

 thicker in the cave hyaena than in the spotted hyaena. With regard to the teeth, however, 

 the general tendency of his remarks implies that it is impossible to distinguish those of 

 the one from those of the other. 



Meanwhile the discovery and study of hyaena remains were actively pursued on the 

 Continent, and a number of new species of hyaena, some allied to the living //. crocuta 

 and some to the living //. striata, were described by Croizet and Jobert 5 (1828), and by 

 Marcel de Serres, Dubrueil, and Jeanjean 6 (1839). Throughout the first half of the 

 nineteenth century little doubt apparently was felt by palaeontologists that the cave 

 hyaena was distinct from the spotted hyaena. Thus de Blainville 7 (1814), Pictet 8 

 (1844), and Owen 9 (1846) all accepted this view. De Blainville discusses the question 

 in detail (vide postea), and bases his opinion mainly on the form of the upper molar. 



The first palaeontologist to express strong doubts as regards the specific distinction 

 of the cave and the spotted hyaenas was Gaudry 10 (1863), but Boyd Dawkins, 11 writing- 

 in 1865, was the first definitely to conclude that no distinction could be drawn between 



1 ' Oss. Foss.,' ed. 1, iv. 2 < p^i Trans.,' cxii (1), p. 171. 



3 'Phil. Trans.,' cxiii, p. 88. * ' Sauo\ Vorw.,' vi. 



5 'Oss. Foss. Puy de Dome.' 6 'Oss. Lunel Viel.' 



7 ' Osteographie,' livr. 14. s ' Traite Paleont.,' i, p. 180. 



9 < Brit. Foss. Mamni.,' pp. 138—160. ™ < Bul] g oc _ q^ o] ji rance • (2), xx, p. 404. 



11 'Nat. Hist. Eev.,' n. s., v, p. 80, 



