520 CARNIVORES. 



does not happen to the * piincipale' in the same dentition as classified 

 by M. de Blainville. 



Passing next to the comparison of the dentition of Quadrupeds 

 more closely allied, and of the same natural order, we find the upper 

 ' principale' in the Lion thus described by M. de Blainville : 

 " Celle-ci, bien plus grande et de forme triangulaire et subtriquetre 

 a sa couronne, avec le sommet submedian et peu pointu, est pourvue 

 en avant et un peu en dedans d'un tubercule basilaire peu marque, 

 et de deux en arriere, dont I'un, le posterieur, est une sorte de 

 talon." Osteogr. de Felis, p. 55. Then follows the description of 

 the first ' arri^re-molaire', which is rightly termed * carnassi^re 

 superieure'. If we turn to M. de Blainville's account of the dentition 

 of Viverra we find that " La principale d'en haut est aussi un peu 

 moins carnassiere par plus dMpaisseur du talon interne anterieure 

 et par moins de largeiir du lobe posterieur." ' Osteogr. de Viverra, 

 p. 42.' The Author is comparing it with the premolar in front of 

 it, which is, in fact, the analogue of his ' dent principale' in the 

 Lion, the ' dent principale' in the Viverra being the analogue of 

 the ' dent carnassiere' in the Lion. Thus the characters adopted 

 by M. de Blainville, not only fail in the determination of the 

 analogous teeth in different orders but also in different genera of 

 the same order, and, according to his first determination of the 

 Feline formula, even in the upper and lower jaws of the same 

 species. 



Neither is the author of the ' Osteographie' more consistent 

 with himself in a later portion of his great Work : in the Fasci- 

 culus on the ' Osteographie de Hyaena,* (p. 25) he adopts a third 

 formula for the molar series of the genus Felis^ apparently from 

 Daubenton, which differs both from that which is given in the 

 * Generalities on the Carnivora,' (p. 69), and from that described 

 in detail in the ' Osteographie de Felis' (p. 55) : it is as 

 follows : — 7 + y + T 5 ^•^- two premolars, one principal, one true 

 molar above ; and one premolar, one principal and one true 

 molar below ; not any remark being made on its discrepancy with 

 the other formulae. But neither is this third view more true to 

 nature, than the two views previously proposed by M. de Blainville 

 in the same Work ; for, according to the natural characters of the 



