Classification of existing Felide. 331 
question would be profitless. So also with Trouessart’s 
classification. The truth is that neither of these authors 
had sufficient acquaintance with the forms dealt with to 
allocate them otherwise than by conjecture. Moreover, 
their choice of generic and subgeneric terms was by no 
means in accordance with the rules of nomenclature. 
In a series of five papers * on the existing Felidz, I have 
recently discussed various characters, both cranial and 
external, which—for the most part, at all events—have not 
been employed hitherto in the discrimination of species and 
genera. Particular attention was drawn to the structure 
of the hyoid apparatus, of the tympanic bulla, of the feet 
and the rhinarium, and it was shown (1) that F, leo, tigris, 
onca, pardus, and uncia, which differ from the rest of the 
family in having the suspensorium of the hyoid imperfectly 
ossified, constitute a little group of Felide containing two 
genera, Panthera and Uncia; (2) that Acinonyx may be 
distinguished by the complete absence of cutaneous sheaths 
guarding the claws; and (3) that in the remaining species, 
all provisionally referred to Felis, there is very considerable 
variation in the structure of the feet, the size and shape of the 
rhinarium, and the structure of the auditory bulle. These 
characters and others have been used in the following 
attempt to classify the existing species of Felile; but my 
main purpose in publishing what follows has been to show 
the true relationship of the species to one another, so far as 
it can be determined, and to dispose of such prevalent but 
fictitious groupings as those which imply that the lion (/eo) 
and the puma (concolor) are closely allied and that the 
lynx (/ynxv) differs more from the domestic cat (catus) than 
the latter differs from the tiger (tigris) T. 
The consideration of generic names, although of sub- 
ordinate importance, has been inevitable. Probably no two 
authors will be quite in accord on the delimitation of the 
genera. In the present state of our knowledge and with the 
rapidly shifting conception of the value of the terms 
““senera” and “ species,” it would be idle to claim finality 
on this subject, and I do not pretend in all cases to have 
been consistent in the admission of species to generic rank, 
In some cases I may have gone too far, as in the severance 
of Zibethailurus from Prionailurus ; in others not far enough, 
* Ann. & Mag. Nat. Hist. (8) xviii. pp. 222-229, 1916 (Aug.) ; 
pp- 806-316 (Sept.) ; pp. 826-834 (Oct.); pp. 419-429 (Nov.), and xix. 
pp- 113-136, 1917 (Jan.). { 
+ Perhaps the most important point connected with correctness of 
view on these and similar matters is that erroneous affiliation of species 
may be hopelessly misieading to students of Od es ga arses 
