Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-j824f Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-06T09:39:58.496Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

III.—Note on a New Species of Merycopotamus

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 May 2009

R. Lydekker
Affiliation:
Merycopotamus nanus, n. sp. nobis (ex Falc. MS.)

Extract

In plates lxii. lxvii. lxviii. of part 7 of the “Fauna Antiqua Sivalensis” (1847) a large number of remains of Merycopotamus (nearly all of which are in the collection of the British Museum) are figured under the name of M. dissimilis, although some of them are distinguished as var. major and others as var. minor; and it thus appears that at that date the authors of the work quoted referred all the remains to one species. It is stated, however, in Falconer's “Palæontological Memoirs,” vol. ii. p. 407, note 4, that in 1846 Falconer considered that there were two species, which he proposed to call M. dissimilis and M. nanus; and some of the smaller specimens figured in the “F. A. S.” under the former name, bear upon them the latter name in Falconer's handwriting. In some manuscript notes of Falconer's, written at a much later date, the name M. nanus is once again employed (although the tooth to which it was applied does not belong to Merycopotamus at all); and it would therefore seem that Falconer had by that time reverted to his original view.

Type
Original Articles
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1884

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

page 545 note 1 This is generally quoted as the authority for the genus; the name occurs, however (with a figure and description), in Owen's “Odontography,” p. 566 (1840–45).

page 545 note 2 “paæontogical Memoirs,” vol. i. p. 416.

page 545 note 3 Vide “paæontologia indica,” ser. 10, vol. i. p. 62.

page 545 note 4 Ser. 10, vol. ii. p. 164.

page 546 note 1 The outline restoration of the profile of the two small crania is entirely incorrect; and was apparently made from the cranium of M. dissimalis.