120 Mr. B,. I. Pocock on the Species of 



but also in having the heel hairy and the rest of the hind 

 foot naked as in Cryptoprocta, Gynogale, and all the typical 

 genera of Paradoxurinse, such as Paradoxurus, Paguma, and 

 ArctogaHdia, in which the hairiness of the heel is so constant 

 a feature that generic importance is attached to it. 



But in the two species next to be noticed, one of which 

 was described long ago as Galidictis vittata, the heel is naked 

 to the tip of the calcaneum. These two also resemble one 

 another in the narrowness of the stripes. This in itself 

 could hardly be regarded as of generic value, but it appears 

 to me that that value should be accorded to the nakedness of 

 the heel. 



Mungotictis, gen. nov. 



Allied to Galidictis, but differing in having the heel naked 

 and the longitudinal stripes narrow. 

 Type, M. vittatus, Gray. 



On Sept. 16, 1886, the Zoological Society received as a 

 present from Mr. B. Muller two so-called mongooses from 

 Madagascar, which were identified as Galidia elegans *. 

 Fortunately the skin of one of these, which survived its 

 arrival only ten days, was preserved. A glance is sufficient 

 to show that this specimen is not Galidia elegans, but is 

 related to M. vittatus, Gray. Many years ago I put it aside 

 as that species ; but upon comparing it with Gray's type of 

 M. vittatus, I rind sufficient differences to warrant the con- 

 clusion that it represents a new form, which may be described 

 as follows : — 



* This is the specimen referred to by Beddard in his paper upon Gali- 

 dictis striata (=eximius) as a presumably correctly identified example of 

 Galidia elegans (P. Z. S. 1907, p. 804). The point to which he drew 

 attention was the presence in this supposed Galidia of P m - 1 , a tooth 

 which, according to Mivart, is absent in that genus, thus constituting one 

 of the differences between Galidia and Hemigalidia — or Salanoia, as it 

 should be called. This claim, however, was invalid at the time Mivart 

 put it forward in 1882, because Geoffroy's figure of the skull of Galidia 

 elegans published in 1839 shows this tooth in place. Thus Galidia and 

 ISalanoia may possess this tooth. Galidictis, on the other hand, is said 

 to be without it — an inference based upon its absence in the skulls of 

 examples identified as G. striata by Geoffroy and Mivart. But it was 

 present, as Beddard stated, in the skull of Mungotictis substriatus. Tt 

 seems, therefore, that the presence or absence of this tooth is not a 

 generic feature in this group. Probably it has no systematic significance. 



