107 



referred to it 1 having an upper carnassial of the Hycenarctos type ; 

 but it must be distinctly understood that its separation from the 

 true Dogs is a purely arbitrary one, it being connected with the 

 group through Cephalogale just as intimately as it is with the Bears 

 through Hycenarctos. 



Subfamily CANINE. 



Genus CYNODICTIS, Bravard and Pomel 3 . 

 Dentition and Affinities. In typical forms the dentition of this 

 genus is numerically the same as that of typical forms of Canis, or 

 1. 1, C. |, Pm. |, H. |. In some species, e. g. 0. compressidens, how- 

 ever, the last lower molar is normally very small, and in some in- 

 stances is entirely absent 3 ; those races in which this tooth is absent 

 being frequently distinguished by the varietal name of viverroides. 

 In those races the dentition is very close to certain Viverroids (e. g. 

 Amphictis and Herpestes), the blade of the lower carnassial being 

 tall and the inner cusp large, and placed relatively far forwards, the 

 " cusp-line " being transverse. The dentition of Herpestes is, however, 

 distinguished by the presence of an inner cusp to the upper third 

 premolar, and by the smaller size of the second lower true molar. 

 In other forms (e. g. G. leptorhyncha*) the blade of the lower car- 

 nassial is relatively low, the inner cusp small, and the " cusp-line " 

 slightly oblique ; and the dentition is then but very slightly removed 

 from that of some of the least specialized species of Canis, like the 

 existing C. bengalensis and the fossil Indian C. curvipalatus (although 

 a " meinocreodont " character is more marked in the Cynodictis) ; 

 and it thus seems probable that there is an almost perfect transition 

 from Cynodictis to Canis, the genera Cynodon (distinguished by the 

 absence of a cusp on the posterior cutting-edge of pm. 4) and Amphi- 

 cynodon being allied forms. One variety of C. leptorhyncha has, 

 however, lost its last lower molar, and thereby shows a viverrine 



1 It should be observed that the writer, after a suggestion of Filhol, refers the 

 so-called Hycenarctos hemicyon to this genus, under the name of Dinocyon 

 hemicyon (vide ' Palseontologia Indica,' op. cit.\ 



2 Notice sur les Ossemens Fossiles de la Debruge, p. 5 (1850). This refer- 

 ence is given by P. Gervais in the Zool. et Pal. Fra^aises, 2nd ed. p. 216. The 

 present writer has been unable to find the memoir quoted in any of the lists to 

 which he has access, and it is probable that it was published on the Continent 

 in a separate form, and that copies never reached the English scientific libraries. 

 The writer is unable to say whether any specific names were given in this 

 memoir. 



3 Vide Filhol, Ann. Soc. Sci. Phys. Nat. Toulouse, 1882 ("Notes sur quel- 

 ques Mammiferes fossiles des Phosphorites du Quercy"). ' 



4 . Vide Filhol, Ann. Sci. Geol. vol. vii. pis. xxi., xxii. 



