﻿HYtENA CROCUTA. 3 



//. spelaea and II. crocuta. He laid stress on the variable character of tlie tubercular 

 portion of the lower carnassial, and considered that several of the supposed species that 

 had been founded by Croizet and Jobert, and by de Serres, Dubrneil, and Jeanjean, 

 mainly on variations in this tooth, were not valid, but were varieties of the cave hyaena 

 {vide poslea) . In his paper on the mammal fauna of the Creswell Crags, 1 published in 

 1877, the same author says that, after comparison of the skulls of 77. crocuta and H. 

 spela>a,he has been unable to detect points of difference of specific value, and definitely 

 states that he believes the two to be identical. 



Busk, however, writing in the same year, 2 while recognising the close relationship 

 between the two forms, said that he did not consider it proved that II. spelcea was a 

 mere variety of II. crocuta. 



Since the publication of Boyd Dawkins' paper in 1S63, almost all authors have 

 accepted the view of the identity of the two forms. This has been done, for example, by 

 Newton 3 (1833), Lydekker 4 (1884-5), Forsyth Major 5 (1885), Woodward and 

 Sherborn 6 (1890), Gauclry 7 (189.2), and Zittel 8 (1893); so that the fact of their identity 

 may be considered to be clearly established. Schlosser, 9 however, expresses doubt as to 

 their identity, mainly on account of the geographical distribution of II. crocutd at the 

 present day. 



A later phase in the study of hyaenas has been the discussion of the mutual relation- 

 ships of the fossil forms, and the probable ancestry of the living ones. This subject has 

 been most fully dealt with by Lydekker, 10 Schlosser, 9 and Gauclry. 7 Lydekker, basing 

 his opinion largely on its occurrence in the Pleistocene Caves of Karnul, in the Madras 

 Presidency, considers that Hycena crocutd originated in India, being derived from the 

 Siwalik (Lower Pliocene) Hycend Colvini, Lyd. The lower carnassials of the two forms 

 agree closely, especially as regards the development of the cingulum, differing chiefly in 

 the relatively large development of the hind talon in II. Colvini. Schlosser derives the 

 cave hyaena, and eventually H. crocutd, from the Upper Pliocene II. Perrieri of Croizet 

 ami Jobert. He derives II. Perrieri from an unknown form whose nearest ally was II. 

 sivdlensis, and he regards H. Colvini as altogether off the line of descent in question. 

 Gauclry also derives H. crocutd (including the cave hyaena) from II. Perrieri, but expressly 

 states that he has not taken account of the Indian species, not being personally 

 acquainted with their fossil remains. The subject of the mutual relationship of the 

 different species of hyaena lies, however, too much beyond the scope of the present 

 monograph to be fully dealt with. 



1 ' Q. J. Geol. Soc.,' xxxiii, p. 596. 2 ' Trans. Zool. Soc.,' x (2), p. 53. 



3 ' Geol. Mag.,' 1883, p. 433. 



i 'Pal. Indica,' ser. 10, ii, p. 275 ; ' Catal. Foss. Ma mm. Brit. Mus.,' i, p. 69. 



5 ' Q. J. Geol. Soc.,' xli, p. 1. ° 'Catal. Brit. Foss. Vert.' 



7 'Mater. Hist. Temps Quat.' (4), p. 116. 8 'Haudb. Palseont.,' iv, p. 661. 



9 'Beitr. Pal. Osterreioli-TJugarns,' Hi, p. 29. 10 'Pal. Indict,,' ser. 10, ii, p. 310. 



