ON THE NOMENCLATURE OF SOME FOSSIL HIPPOPOTAMI BY

D. A. HOOIJER RIJKSMUSEUMVAN NATUURLIJKE HISTORIE, LEIDEN

In 1804 CUVIER published a note on some fossil remains of hippopotami from Montpellier and the Val d'Arno, among which he distinguished a large and a small form. Only CUVIER'S "grand Hippopotame fossile" will be dealt with here. At first CuvIER could not separate it from the recent species (CuvIER, 1804, p. 99). , z In 1820 the Museum d'Histoire Naturelle in Paris received a recent adult skeleton, the first to arrive in , from an shot by DELALANDE at the lower Berg river, 40 miles from Cape Town. In the second edition of his "Ossemens fossiles" CuvIER gave a careful description of this skeleton; a comparison with the fossil bones he had received in the meantime gave evidence that these bones were too large to belong to the recent species (CuvIER, 1821, p. 3I5). It was not until 1824 that CUVIER proposed the scientific name (CUVIER, 1824, p. 527). Two years earlier, however, the specific name was given by DESMAREST (1822, p. 388) to the animal originally described by CUVIER as "grand Hippopo- tame fossile". As DESNIAREST's note includes a description and a reference to CuvIER's publication, Hippopotamus antiquus Desmarest is the valid name according to the Rules of Zoological Nomenclature. There is some confusion as to the author's name; CUVIER is cited as the author of Hippopotamus antiquus by LESSON (1827, p. 342), FISCHER (1829, p. 426), FALCONER and CAUTLEY (1836, p. 51) and FALCONER (1868, p. 140). This species, which is now known to have inhabited Europe in the period, S of the line about connecting Yorkshire, Antwerp, Mosbach, Aargau, Pressburg, is so closely related to Hippopo- tanaus amphibius L. that many authors do not regard it as a distinct species, e.g., BLAINVILLE (1847, p. 61), LYDEKKER (1885, p. 277), DAWKINS (vide MAJOR, 1885, p. 8), BOULE (1910, p. 193) and REYNOLDS (1922). The latter gives a review of the literature. 280

The major difference between antiquus and amphibius, however, is that of the size of the teeth, especially the lower C and I,, which in the fossil species occasionally reach diameters, larger than ever found in amphibius. There is some uncertainty about the priority of the name Hippopotamus antiquus Desm. BLAINVILLE (1847, p. 55 footnote) remarks that FISCHER has used the specific name maximus before CUVIER had published the name major. In SHERBORN (1928, p. 3925) Hippopotamus maximus is mentioned, but the only reference given is BLAINVILLE (1847, p. 55)! According to SHERBORN (I.C., p. 3765) FISCHER is the author of Hippopotamus macrodon (FISCHER, G., 1814. Zoognosia tabulis synopticis illus- trata, ed. 3, III, p. 331, non vidi), which just as Hippopotamus magnus Rafinesque (Specchio d. Sci. e Giorn. Enciclop. di Sicilia II (12), Dec. I8I4, p. 183, non vidi) might apply to the Hippopotamus antiquus of DESMAREST. BRONN ( I8q.8, p. 589) mentions the name Hippopotamus major and gives the following references: "NESTI i Atti Moden. XVIII, 4I5; - Cuv. oss. I, 304, t. I, f. 1-5, t. 2, f. 1, 2, 10, t. 4, f. 1-4, t. 5, f. I-I5, 17, t. 6, f. I-I5". NESTI'S publication was not available to me, but Prof. G. DAL PIAZ, Turin, kindly informed me that NESTI only used the name Ippopotamo Maggiore, and not Hippopotamus major. This is in accordance with a reference to Ippopotamo maggiore by FISCHER (1829, p. 426). Moreover TROUESSART (1898) does not mention NESTI as the author of a scientific name of a hippopotamus. The citations of CUVIER in BRONN do not refer to a scientific name but to the fossil named by CuvIER: "grand Hippopotame fossile". However this may be, the fact that DESMAREST used the name Hippopotamus antiquus in I822 makes the further use of this name invalid for species of the genus Hippopotamus described since 182 2. The name Hippopotamus antiquus is mentioned by LESSOrr (182 7, p. 342), FISCHER (1829, p. 426), FALCONER and CAUTLEY (1836, p. 5I), FALCONER (1868, p. I4.0) and WOODWARD (1886, p. 115). It is regarded as a synonym of H. major by BLAINVILLE (1847, p. 55) and BRONN (1848, p. 589); we find it in the synonymy of H. amphibius in LYDEKKER (1885, p. 277) and in TROUESSART (1898, p. 832; 1905, p. 665). VON KOENIGSWALD ( I g3q., p. 192, pl. IV fig. 4) proposed the name Hippopotamus (Hexaprotodon) antiquus for a new species occurring with the lower pleistocene Djetis fauna of Java