EL.1KE-— ON THE GENUS CAINOTHEIIIUM. 



125 



C. laticurvatinn : head large, especially towards the frontals, with 

 a straight profile as far as under the orbits, depressed towards the 

 fronto-parietal surface. 



C. commune (= C. latecurvatum, De Blainville) : smaller ; head 

 more lengthened, and more elevated towards the parietal region. 



C. elegans : of the size of the preceding : head still more convex 

 towards the fronto-parietal suture : palatines more sloping : limbs 

 more slender. 



C. metapium (? metopiim, from /^ertoTrtov, forehead) : size of the pre- 

 ceding ; head more concave in front of the orbits ; forehead conse- 

 quently more elevated ; zygomatic arch very short. 



C.gracile : one-third smaller ; mandibular bone very narrow, sym- 

 physis shorter, more projecting beneath ; limb-bones very short. 



I have recently made a careful examination of the Cainotheria in 

 the British Museum, where M. Bravard's and M. Pomel's specimens 

 are deposited, with a view to detect any specific difi"erences which 

 might be visible. I have not had the opportunity of knowing on 

 which specimens M. Pomel's conclusions were founded. I merely 

 record my conviction that the British Museum collection does not 

 contain more than two species at most, the Cainotherium commune 

 and O. metapium, if the specific distinction of the latter species is to be 

 admitted. Some of the specimens in the British Museum collection 

 are named C. majus by M. Pomel. Another, apparently not specifi- 

 cally distinct from the C. commune, M. Bravard terms G. leptlielicium. 

 One of the Museum specimens, by the degree of concavity or depres- 

 sion of the preorbital space, may belong to the (7. metapium of Pomel, 

 but this is very doubtful. No dental distinction has been detected 

 by me, even though aided by a strong lens. The few slight differences 

 wliich otherwise exist are merely referable to age. The degree of 

 backward inflection of the coronoid process of the jaw varies, so to a 

 less extent do the proportions of the limb-bones, but not more so 

 than between the skulls of musk-deer at various ages. 



The generic name Microtherium must clearly give place to Caino- 

 therium, which was invented two years earlier. Of the identity of 

 the species there can be no doubt. The specimen of Microtherium 

 Renggeri in the British Museum, from the Miocene of Haslach, in 

 Wurtemberg, being the right upper maxillary, with m 3 coming into 

 place, is in no manner specifically distinct from the Cainotheria from 

 Allier, in the same case. 



Whether the genus Hgagulus of Pomel rests upon a correct ap- 

 preciation of its generic value, may be much doubted. The mere 

 fact of the scaphoid and cuboid bones being confluent would scarcely 

 merit generic distinction, and the alleged deeper sculpturing of the 

 hinder molars in HycFgulus murinus is far from visible on M. Gervais' 

 plate. The teetli of Cainotherium Courtoisii might very well belong 

 to the young of Cainotherium commune, before the molars have been 

 abraded by use. The abrasion of the molars in some of the Museum 

 specimens might lead a hasty species-maker to form several species. 



None but the practical worker can appreciate the difficulty of 



