BLAKE — OIT THE GENUS CAINOTHERIUM. 
125 
C. laticurvatum : head large, especially towards the frontals, with 
a straight profile as far as under the orbits, depressed towards the 
fronto-parietal surface. 
G. commune (= C. latecurvatum, De Blainville) : smaller ; head 
more lengthened, and more elevated towards the parietal region. 
C. elegans : of tlie size of the preceding : head still more convex 
towards the fronto-parietal suture : palatines more sloping : limbs 
more slender. 
C. metapmm (? meiopiimi, from ii€T0)7nov, forehead) : size of the pre- 
ceding ; head more concave in front of the orbits ; forehead conse- 
quently more elevated ; zygomatic arch very short, 
C.cjracile : 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 Cainotlieriiim commune 
and C. 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 C. leptlielicium. 
One of the Museum specimens, by the degree of concavity or depres- 
sion of the preorbital space, may belong to the C. 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 diff'erences 
which 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 nnisk-deer at various ages. 
The generic name Microtlierium must clearly give place to Caino- 
tlierium, which was invented two years earlier. Of the identity of 
the species there can be no doubt. The specimen of Microtlierium 
Benggeri 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 Hycegulus 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 IlycEgulus murinus is far from visible on M. Gervais' 
plate. The teetli of Cainotherium Courtoisii might very well belong 
to the young of Cainotlierium 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 
