Page:Quarterly Journal of the Geological Society of London, vol. 26.djvu/227

Rh rentiated. But the entire skull and the many fragments in the Taunton Museum differ far more from any recent skulls with which we have been able to compare them than almost any of those of the existing species of the restricted genus Lepus do from each other. A reference to the table of measurements at the end of this paper will show the almost gigantic size of the fossil form.

A minute description of the skull and other bones would require an undue amount of space; but the following are a few of the most salient characters which appear to be constant. The frontals differ in form from those of every hare with which we have compared them, with the exception of those of the much smaller form, Lepus altaicus of the British Museum Catalogue; but in the skulls of this animal the postorbital processes are much less developed, and do not extend as far back as the parietals, with which these processes coalesce in the fossil. In this respect the fossil agrees with the Rekalek or Polar hare, Lepus arcticus; it also resembles this animal in the comparatively great depth of the malar; but in no other respect have the animals any near affinity, the skull being comparatively much longer. From all other hares with which we have compared it, it differs by the depression on the malar being carried much further forward, by the angle formed by this bone with the ascending process of the maxillary which forms the anterior border of the orbit being much more distinctly marked and less rounded off, as well as by the greater development of the posterior process of the malar. We have found too much individual variation in the minute comparative measurements of the different bones of the skull to trust to any of them as specific distinctions; but the aspect of the whole skull (independent of its size) is so different when placed among a large number of recent crania that it is impossible not to be at once convinced of its distinctness (Pl. VIII. fig. 5).

The greater number of the other bones of the skeleton confirms this opinion; for, though not much longer, they are almost invariably much larger and stouter, when found with the older fauna, than those of any recent hares to which we have had access.

10. Although by far the larger proportion of the bones of hares from the deposits in which the Mammoth-fauna occurs are of the stout and comparatively gigantic form, a certain though small number cannot be distinguished from those of Lepus timidus (Linn.), which we must therefore class as belonging to this fauna, whereas in the caves which were more recently filled, such as Whitcombe's Hole in the Mendip, which contained sheep, none of the larger bones are found; they are exclusively those of the common hare and the rabbit.

The same has occurred to us in another locality, the details of which we are not at present in a position to publish.

11. Lepus hibernicus (Bell). A single half lower jaw from Hutton Cave may doubtfully be referred to this species: it is too mutilated and belonged to too young an animal to be determined absolutely.