﻿148 PLEISTOCENE MAMMALIA. 



Our great cave-explorer, Dr. Buckland, 1 in 1823, was the first to ascribe the spelaean 

 remains to the fossil Tiger, without, however, giving any reasons for his conclusion. 



His rival, Dr. Schmerling, in 1833, in his resume of the species of Felis in the caverns 

 of Liege, 2 considers that Felis spelcea, was allied to the Lion, but of a distinct species. He 

 figures, however, bones from the same locality as belonging to the existing Lion ; but 

 confuses them with those of the Felis antiqua of Cuvier, which was not a Lion, but a 

 Panther [F. Far dm). 



MM. Marcel de Serres, Dubreuil, and Jeanjean, 3 writing in 1839, insist on the specific 

 distinctness of Felis spelcea from the recent Lion, assigning as the principal difference the 

 shortness of the muzzle. Like Dr. Schmerling, they identify a second species with the 

 latter animal. 



M. de Blainville, in 1841, 4 rejects the view advanced by Marcel de Serres and Dr. 

 Schmerling, that the smaller bones ascribed to the Lion belong to a species differing from 

 Felis spelcea, on the ground that they were probably not those of an adult. He, however, 

 offers no opinion on the exact affinities of Felis spelcea. 



M. Pictet, 5 in 1844, uses nearly the same words as Marcel de Serres and his fellow- 

 workers in his notice on Felis spelcea. He does not recognise the smaller remains as 

 those of Felis leo. 



M. Gervais, 6 in the first edition of his ' Paleontologie,' published in 1848, regards 

 the animal as a Lion [Felis leo major), without assigning any reasons for his conclusion. 



Professor Owen, 7 1842, adopted Dr. Buckland's opinion, and terms the animal a 

 " spelaean Tiger," although he recognises the want of evidence sufficient to put the 

 question of its species beyond dispute. He reproduced his views in 1846, in the 'British 

 fossil Mammals.' 8 In 1859, however, he published, in the 'Philosophical Transactions/ 9 

 a figure of a skull with the nasal processes restored as in the Lion. It is clear, therefore, 

 that he recognises the leonine nature of the animal, for his figure shows that characteristic 

 which is of specific value in determining Lion from Tiger. 



Dr. Ealconer is quoted by the eminent French palaeontologist M. Lartet, 10 in 1864, as 

 holding the view that Felis spelcea was identical in species with the Tiger inhabiting the 

 north of China and the region of the Altai, and that it was driven out of Europe " par 

 le developpement progressif des societes humaines." In 1858 11 he enumerated "Cave 

 Lion " among the remains from Kent's Hole. 



1 'Reliquiae Diluvianse,' p. 261, 1823. 2 'Oss. Foss. de Liege,' torn, ii, p. 93, 1833. 



3 'Oss. Foss. de Lunel-Viel,' p. 101, 1839. 4 ' Osteographie,' article "Felis," p. 115, 1841. 



5 'Paleontologie,' vol. i, p. 186, 1st ed., 1844 ; vol. i, p. 228, 2nd ed., 1853. 



6 'Zoologie et Paleontologie Franchises,' vol. i, p. 123, 1st ed., 1848 ; vol. i, p. 227, 2nd ed., 1859. 



7 'Report of British Association,' 1842. 



8 'British Foss. Mam.,' 1846. 



9 ' Philosophical Trans.,' pi. xii, "Memoir on Thylacoleo," 1859. 



10 'Revue Archeologique Cavernes du Perigord,' p. 21, 1864. 



11 ' Palseontological Memoirs,' vol. ii, p. 457, 1868. 



