188 Miscellaneous, Description of a Fossil Cranium of the Musk-buffalo (Bubalus mos-chatus, Owen), from the Gravel at Maidenhead, Berks. By Prof. Owen, F.G.S. This specimen was discovered by the Rev. Mr. Kingsley and Mr. J. Lubbock in a gravel-pit close to the engine-house at the Maidenhead station last summer, and is the first example of the subgenus Bubalus yet recognized as fossil in Britain. It consists of the cranial part of the skull, with the horn-cores, nearly perfect. The Professor, in describing this fossil, first offered his reasons for regarding the so-called " Musk-ox " as having been unnecessarily separated from the Buffaloes, and then gave an account of the few fossil skulls of the Musk-buffalo yet known, viz. those figured by Pallas, Ozeretskowsky, and Cuvier. A comparison was then made of the fossil remains with recent crania ; and, although the skulls somewhat differ in a few points, especially in the relative curvatures of the horn-cores, yet the author was led to conclude that, as far as the materials for comparison at his command would serve, the dif-ferences between the fossil and recent Musk-buffaloes are not of specific value ; that the Bubalus moschatus of the Arctic regions, with its now restricted range, is the slightly modified descendant of the old companion of the Mammoth and the Tichorhine Rhinoceros, which with them enjoyed a much wider range, both in latitude and longitude, over lands that now form three divisions or con-tinents of the northern hemisphere ; and that the circumstances which have brought about the probably gradual extinction of the northern Rhinoceros and Elephant have not yet effected that of the contemporary species of Arctic Buffalo. — Proc. GeoL Soc. Dec. 19, 1855. A last word on Scissurella. By J. Gwyn Jeffreys, Esq., F.R.S. To the Editors of the Annals of Natural History. Gentlemen, — I had not intended at first to notice the commu-nication of Mr. Woodward in your last Number, entitled " On the Evils of Increasing Synonyms ;" but, lest it may be assumed that T admit his statements, I must request you to insert these few remarks. The real question at issue, and the only one which in any way concerns naturalists or the cause of science, is whether Schismope is synonymous with Scissurella, or whether they constitute distinct genera. Now, although Mr. Woodward modestly states that he has shown they are synonymous and that the fact admitted of no reply, I cannot help reminding your readers that Dr. Gray (who is undeniably a much better authority than either Mr. Woodward or myself) has expressed a contrary opinion, and that the respective characters of those genera were taken from species which differ from each other in form, organization, and habit. I have now before me 130 specimens oi Scissurella crispata of different ages and sizes, all of which exhibit the open slit. As regards myself personally, I must repeat my regret that Mr,
BioStor
