VIVERRID-E. 105 



side, as is generally the case in existing species, and that 

 the anterior border of the coronoid process inclines back- 

 ward to a considerably greater extent, thus indicating a 

 form of jaw of inferior biting-power. The lower jaw of 

 the existing African H. gracilis is also of nearly the same 

 size as the fossil, but, in addition to the points distinguishing 

 the jaw of H. nipalensis from the latter, differs in the very 

 general absence of pm . i and the considerably smaller size 

 of that tooth -when present. It does not appear that any 

 other of the living species (most of which are of consider- 

 ably larger size) comes so near to the fossil as H. nipa- 

 lensis. Although the lower teeth of Genetta are very like 

 those of Herpestes 1 , yet the inner cusp of the carnassial is 

 usually less strongly developed in the former, and in this 

 respect the fossil differs from the smaller Genets, although 

 the form of the hinder part of the jaw is more like that of 

 Genetta. The extremely close resemblance of the denti- 

 tion of the fossil to H. nipalensis renders it extremely 

 probable that it should be referred to the same genus 

 rather than to Viverra. 



All the sufficiently described fossil species of the genus 

 are of considerably larger size than the present specimen ; 

 and this is especially the case with H. crassus, Filhol 2 , and 

 the so-called H. antiquus 3 , Pomel, which appears to be the 

 same as Viverra antiqua, Blainv. 



It may be added that the present specimen is distin- 

 guished from Mustela gracilis' 1 ' by the absence of any 

 interval between the anterior premolars, by the larger size 

 of pm. 1, of the inner cusp of m7l (which is only rudimen- 

 tary in that form), and of mT2. It is distinguished from 

 Cynodictis exilis 5 , which is of nearly the same size, by the 

 absence of mT3, and by the larger and lower crown of the 

 carnassial, which does not exceed the height of the pre- 

 molars 6 . Purchased, 1884. 



Vide Mivart, Proc. Zool. Soc. 1882, p. 177. 



Arch. Mus. Lyon, vol. iii. p. 63, pi. iv. figs. 10, 11. 



Fide Filhol, Ann. Sci. Geol. vol. x. art. 3, pp. 161-163, pi. rriv. figs. 5-9 

 (wrongly named H. priscus in letterpress, vide Arch. Mus. Lyon, loc. cit.). 



Vide Filhol, Ann. Sci. Geol. vol. viii. art. 1, p. 45, Plesiogale. 



Ibid. vol. vii. art. 7, pi. xxiv. figs. 97-101 (misnamed Cynodictis gracilis in 

 the description of the plates ; the real mandible of the latter is represented in 

 vol. viii. pi. xx. fig. 337). 



6 The present specimen has been already referred to Herpestes by the present 

 writer in the Geol. Mag. dec. 3, vol. i. p. 442 (1884). 



