262 NORTH AxMERICAN MUSTELID^. 



external. Back upper premolar similar iu size ami shape (tbougli the emi- 

 nences of the crown very different), but the hypothenuse postero-internal. 

 Back under premolar with two tubercles. Anterior under molar compara- 

 tively small, not dilated behind, mostly opposing the back upper premolar 

 (instead of the upper molar as in Meles). Cerebral portion of skull de- 

 pressed-cuneiform, very wide across the flaring occipital crest; the inter- 

 mastoid diameter nearly equalling the inter-zygomatic ; sides of the brain- 

 case straightened and strongly convergent anteriorly. Bony palate reach- 



which soon disappears; this will add 1-1 premolar to the lower jaw, making 

 34 in all." But such additional under premolar of the early dentition 

 (which I have not seen, though I have examined skulls with the teeth 

 scarcely cut) would make 36 in all, not " 34", the latter being the correct 

 total of the adult formula. 



Audubon and Bachman state (Quad. N. Am. i. 301) that " the present spe- 

 cies has one tooth less than the latter IMeles vulgaris'] on each side in the 

 lower jaw", which is certainly not the case, as the dental formula is the 

 same in the two genera. Quotiug AVaterhouse, Trans. Zool. Soc. ii. pt. v, p. 

 343, these authors continue : — " ' The subgeneric name, Taxidea, may be ap- 

 plied to the American Badger, and such species as may be hereafter dis- 



6 1—1 2—'' 2—2 



covered with incisors-; canines j^^; false molars ^_^, ... molars ^^ . . . '" 

 I have not Waterhouse's article at hand to verify the quotation ; if his words 

 and figures are correctly quoted, Waterhouse did not give the right formula, 

 for his total is only 32, instead of 34 ; besides which he reckoned the upper 

 sectorial tooth as a molar, instead of a premolar, as it is. Making this 

 change, but retaining his original numbers, Waterhouse's formula becomes 



3-3 1-1 



pm. ~, m. ^-^. But there are five grinding teeth on each side of the lower 

 jaw of Taxidea. I have never seen an American Badger's skull with teeth 

 otherwise than as given in the text above. 



A pecuharity in dentition of Meles vulgaris, which may account for dis- 

 crepant statements of the dental formula, has been pointed out by Professors 

 Moseley and Lankester ( Journ. Anat. and Phys. iii. 1868, 79) : — " Mr Flower, 

 in his recent admirable paper on the Dentition of Marsupials, has laid some 

 stress on the fact that, in several diphyodont mammalia, some of the anterior 

 maxillary teeth never have any predecessors, as in the case of the second an- 

 terior maxillary teeth of the dog, and the corresponding lateral mandibular 

 teeth, and in the hog also. We are led to believe, from the examiuation of 

 a fine series of Badgers' skulls iu the university museum, that this animal 

 furnishes an additional example. In three skulls, possessmg the permanent 

 dentition, we found a small jieg-like tooth implanted in the jaw immediately 

 behind the cauiniform maxillary, and somewhat internally to the general 

 line of the teeth, and obviously corresponding to the small anterior lateral 

 tooth (pnomolar) of the lower series abutting agaiust the large cauiniform. 

 We found no trace of this tooth iu a young skull with the perfect deciduous 

 dentition, nor in De Blainville's figure of the same. It is described neither 

 by Owen nor De Blainville, and is evidently easily lost, since it has dropped 

 out of one skull, leaving only its alveolus as evidence of its former pres- 

 ence ; and in two other skulls no traces of it were to be seen at all.. The 

 addition of this tooth makes the dentition of the Badger the same as that 

 of the Glutton." 



