156 PROCEEDINGS OF THE NATIONAL MUSEUM. vol.45. 



of this large tooth is so placed that the straight fang is directed 

 downward and backward. The canuie tooth itself is slightly better 

 developed than it is in Tana or Tupaia, but owing to the great size 

 of the incisor just in front it is scarcely noticed. In the mandible 

 the first two incisors are essentially as they are in Tana or Tupaia, 

 but the third lower incisor is very small, functionless, and sometimes 

 deciduous. The lower cariine is well developed, to match with the 

 canine-like second upper incisor. While the lower canine and the 

 second upper incisor undoubtedly perform the functions of upper 

 and lower canines, yet it is interesting to notice that the positions of 

 the two teeth are reversed, the lower canine being placed posterior 

 to the tooth that functions as the upper canine, whereas in the case 

 of true canines the lower tooth cuts in front of the upper tooth. 



The upper and lower series of premolars in TJrogale are essentially 

 as they are in Tupaia or Tana, but both of the last premolars are 

 relatively better developed in TJrogale and apparently of better service 

 to the animal. This is particularly well shown in the protocone of 

 pm *, which is quite large and has nearly the same relative degree of 

 development as is found in that tooth in Anathana. The lower molar 

 series of Urogale and Tupaia are indistinguishable. The upper series 

 are nearly alike in the two genera, but the hypocones of m* and m^ 

 are much better developed in Urogale than they are in Tupaia or 

 Tana, being nearly as large as in Anathana. (See figure 13, page 155.) 



Geographic distrihution. — So far as known TJrogale occurs on only 

 one island, Mindanao, of the Philippines. See E on map on page 143. 



Number of forms. — Urogale contains but a single species, U. 

 everetti. 



RemarliS. — Urogale, while clearly belonging to the subfamily wdth 

 Tupaia, Tana, Anathana, and Dendrogale, is more different from them 

 than any of them differs among themselves. With which one it has 

 the closest affinity it is hardly possible to say. In most respects it has 

 many points of real resemblance to the genus Tana and in some ways 

 may be looked upon as the Tana type carried to an extreme. My 

 own view is that both have been derived from some common ancestor 

 different from Tupaia, and that owing to its isolation and smallness 

 of the land area on which it is found, Urogale went farther than did 

 Tana. The habits and food of Urogale probably differ considerably 

 from those of the rest of the subfamilj^ From the development of 

 its teeth, elongated rostrum, generally heavy build, one would sup- 

 pose it to be a more predatory and carnivorous animal than any other 

 member of the subfamily. 



The two specimens collected by Dr. E. A. Meams on Mount Apo 

 were snared in trees by natives, and the one from Mount Malindang 

 was shot on a tree stump. It had been observed several days before, 

 and in its actions resembled a chipmunk. 



