158 Mr. P. I. Pocock on some of the 



it is obvious that Mivart's classification of tlie genus in the 

 same category of Viverridae as Paradoxurus and ArctoguUdia, 

 a category characterised by having the " tarsus half bald," 

 is quite indefensible, since it is not true in fact, and ignores 

 the very considerable differences in the matter of hairiness 

 between the soles of the hind feet in Hemigalus, on the one 

 hand, and in Paradoxurus and Arctogalidia on the other. 



The points to be noticed about the feet are these. The 

 nakedness of the area between the plantar pad and the 

 carpal or metatarsal pads is aParadoxurine feature. On the 

 other hand, the narrowness of the conjoined carpal pads is a 

 Viverrine feature, as exemplified in Genetta. The reduction 

 of the metatarsal pads both in breadth and width, and the 

 relatively large area of the metatarsus which is overgrown with 

 hair, while distinguishing the hind foot from that of the 

 Paradoxurines, is not in accord with the condition observed 

 in the Viverrines. It comes nearest to the type seen in 

 (renetta, but in the latter these pads are less well developed 

 close to the plantar pad, but extend much farther up towards 

 the heel. 



Until 1892 the genus Hemigalus occupied an isolated 

 position, without near allies. Gray made it the sole repre- 

 sentative of a special tribe of the Viverridae, called Hemi- 

 galina ; but possibly because Hemigalus was monotypical, 

 this classification was not adopted by later writers, who 

 merely quoted Hemigalus as one of the many genera con- 

 stituting the heterogeneous subfamily Viverrinse. 



In 1892, however, Mr. Oldfield* Thomas described* a 

 second species, Hemigale hosei, based upon specimens from 

 Mt. Dulit in N. Borneo. Chiefly on account of certain 

 well-marked differences in the teeth, he subsequently gave 

 this species generic rank under the name Diplogale, and at 

 the same time described a third genus Chrotogale to receive 

 a species, Ch. owstoni, from Yunnan, differing from both 

 Hemigalus and Diplogale in dentition, although resembling 

 the type of the former in being transversely banded instead 

 of devoid of pattern like D. hosei f. 



There is unfortunately no spirit-preserved material, either 

 of Diplogale or Chrotogale, available for examination. But, 

 so far as can be judged from dry skins, these genera resemble 

 Hemigalus in the shape of the rhinarium, the development 



* Ann. & Mag. Nat. Hist, (6) ix. p. 250; also P. Z. S. 1892, p. 22 2. 

 pis. xviii. & xix. 



t P, Z, S. lit] 2. pp. 499-503, 



