40 CRYPTOPROCTIDiE. 



the upper surface of the tail are pale brown ; back of ears black ; 

 an angular line from the front of the orbit to the angle of the month 

 dark brown ; the hps, chin, and sides of the nose white (see P. Z. S. 

 1867, t. 24). 



Fam. 3. CRYPTOPROCTIDIE. 



Head oblong ; face slightly produced ; nose flat and bald beneath, 

 with a central longitudinal groove. Legs moderate, nearly of equal 

 length. Soles of the feet with six pads; fore ones wider in front; 

 hinder ones oblong, elongate. The skuU oblong ; false grinders f . f , 

 the front upper small ; tubercular grinders one only on each side of 

 the upper jaw, none in the lower one ; flesh-tooth with a well- 

 marked internal lobe. 



"Vivenidfe (Ciyptoproctina), Graxj, P. Z. S. 1864, p. 545. 



CRYPTOPEOCTA. 



Head conical. "Whiskers rigid, very long. Ears large, covered 

 with short hairs externally. Nose naked, with a central longitudi- 

 nal groove beneath. Tail elongate. Pads of the feet naked. Toes 

 united by a web. 



Cr\-ptoprocta, Bennett, P. Z. S. 1832, p. 46 ; Trans. Zool Soc. i. 

 p. 137 ; Gray, P. Z. S. 1864, p. 545. 



The Cryptoprocta " has an anal pouch, and when violently en- 

 raged it emits a most disagreeable smell, very like that of Mejjhites ; 

 when at hberty it lies constantly in a rolHng position, sleeping 

 always on its side or even on its back, holding with its fore feet the 

 small wires of its cage." — Telfair. 



M. Isidore Geoffroy, in his observations on this genus (Mag. Zool. 

 1839, p. 25), says it is very different from Galidia — which no one can 

 doubt if he has studied the description of the feet. M. Joui'dan ob- 

 serves, "Le Cryptoprocta de Bennett, pent etre le meme que VEupleres 

 de M. Doyer ; il semble plutot etre le representant des Paradoxures de 

 Madagascar " (Ann. Sci. Nat. vii. p. 272 : 1837). This is a mistake, 

 as any one may prove by comparing the skuUs, which are both 

 figured in De Blainville's ' Osteographie.' M. Pucheran also ap- 

 pears to tliink that this animal and the one described as Eupleres 

 Goudotil may not be diff'erent (Rev. et Mag. Zool. 1858, p. 40). 



In my Monograph of Yiverridae I formed the genus into a dis- 

 tinct tribe of that family (see P. Z. S. 1864, p. 545), observing that 

 the teeth of the young skull, which only was known, were somewhat 

 like those of Viverra malaccensis ; but the discovery of the adult 

 animal has shown that it is very much like a Cat, but differing in 



