MAMMALS—CANIDAE—VULPES VIRGINIANUS. 14] 
notch of the lower jaw, a close resemblance to the Canis megalotis or Agriodus megalotis of the 
Cape of Good Hope. The latter genus is, however, readily distinguishable by the additional 
molar in each jaw, above and below. 
The lower jaw of the gray foxes exhibits a striking peculiarity on its lower margin. This is 
cut abruptly out a short distance in front of the descending ramus, and the outline continues to 
the end above the level of the rest of the anterior portion. In the red foxes there is only a 
gentle curve upwards at this point. 
In consequence of the shorter muzzle of the gray foxes, the distances between the teeth are 
but slight, these in fact, especially in the lower jaw, being nearly in contact. There is no very 
striking difference in the teeth of the gray and red foxes, except that the crowns are encircled 
more or less by a kind of raised rim or margin, within which are the various tubercles, &c. 
Portions of such a border are seen in the red foxes, but seldom so complete; thus in the upper 
sectorial the basal ridge or rim extends on the inside all the way to the anterior internal tubercle, 
instead of involving only the posterior half of the tooth. The teeth, as already stated, are closer 
together, and while shorter antero-posteriorly, are considerably higher. In the lower sectorial 
there is a tubercle on the outer side of the middle cone near the base, not seen in the red foxes. 
Skulls from Texas show a rather narrower muzzle, with shorter and broader nasals. There 
is, however, a considerable difference in this respect in specimens from Pennsylvania and 
Maryland, and a greater number from the first mentioned district would probably exhibit the 
same variation of characters. 
A young gray fox skull from Pennsylvania is in the process of shedding the milk teeth. The 
temporal ridges are as described in the adult skull, though not very decided. The skull is 
considerably swollen on the middle just behind the line connecting the points of the orbital 
processes. The permanent incisors, first premolars, and first molars are all in place, the 
canines and the fourth premolar, and second molar above, are not quite up, although their 
predecessors have been shed. The third or posterior molar has just commenced to pierce the 
bone. The second and third temporary molars above, the second, third, and fourth below, are 
still in place. The third deciduous molar above, though smaller, is much like the fourth 
permanent molar, the inner tubercle more nearly opposite the centre of the tooth, and with 
a supplementary pointed tubercle in the middle of the antero-internal face. The second and 
third lower deciduous molars are like their successors; the fourth premolar is shaped almost 
exactly like the first true molar immediately posterior to it. 
The question as to which of the two names, virginianus and cinereo-argentatus, should be 
retained for the species, is rather a difficult one to settle. Both Erxleben and Schreber describe 
the gray fox under the two names; the former author mentioning virginianus first; the latter, 
cinereo-argentatus. The dates of the published works of these authors are 1777 and 1778, 
respectively. Curiously enough, however, Erxleben, in 1777, quotes volume, page, and plate 
of Schreber’s work of 1778, showing that the latter was probably published in parts, and that 
the portion relating to the gray fox had actually appeared in 1777, before Erxleben printed his 
Systema. 
The description by both authors of this fox under the name of Canis cinereo-argentatus, is 
much more accurate than under C. virginianus. There can, however, be no question of the 
species, as indicated by the latter, on account of the reference to Catesby, and as his article was 
the first published notice of the animal, it may, perhaps, be allowed to turn the scale in favor 
