THE BEITISH LION. 
151 
points of specific difference. Baron Cuvier, in the second 
edition of the “ Ossements fossiles,” published in 1 823, does not 
pronounce a decided opinion on the relation which the animal 
holds to the large existing members of the genus, because he 
was unable to make a personal inspection of the type specimens 
described by Dr. Groldfuss ; but he states his belief that its real 
affinities are neither with the Lion nor the Tiger, but with the 
Jaguar, giving, as his principal reasons, the gentle curve of the 
profile and the form of the lower jaw. Our great cave-explorer. 
Dr. Buckland, 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 his resume of the 
species of Felis in the caverns of Liege, considered that Felis 
sjpelcea was allied to the Lion, but of a distinct species. He 
figures, nevertheless, bones from the same locality as belonging 
to the existing Lion, but confuses them with the Felis antiqua 
of Cuvier, which was not a Lion but a Panther. MM. De Serres, 
Dubreuil, and Jeanjean, 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. They 
follow Dr. Schmerling in identifying a second species with the 
latter animal. M. Grervais, in the first edition of his Paleonto- 
logie,” published in 1848, regards the animal as a Lion, without 
assigning any cause for his conclusion. Professor Owen, on 
the other hand, in 1842, adopted Dr. Buckland’s opinion, and 
terms the animal a spelsean Tiger, although he recognises the 
lack of evidence sufficient to put its specific identity beyond 
dispute. He reproduced his views in 1846 in the British 
FossilMammals.” In 1859, however, he published, in the ^^Philo- 
sophical Transactions,” a figure of the spelaean skull described by 
Dr. Groldfuss, with the nasal processes represented as in the 
Lion. It is clear, therefore, that he recognises the leonine 
nature of the animal to which it belonged, for his figure shows 
that characteristic which is of specific value in determining 
Lion from Tiger. Dr. Falconer is quoted by M. Lartet, in 
1864, as holding the view that the animal was identical with 
the Tiger inhabiting the north of China and region of the Altai, 
and that it was driven out of Europe par le developpement 
progressif des societes humaines.” Nevertheless, in 1858, he 
enumerated the Cave Lion amono- the remains from Kent’s Hole. 
O 
This clash of opinion as to the actual affinities of Felis 
spelcea flows from two causes : the imperfection of the fossil 
remains, and the non-recognition of the fact that the individuals 
of living Feline species presented great variations in form and 
size. In the monograph of the British fossil Felidae, published 
by Mr. W. A. Sanford and myself, an attempt has been made 
to arrive at the truth, by a strict analysis of the sum of the 
