K. S. Bardenfleth: On the systematic position of Æluropus tneianoleucus. 6 



premolars this genus differs very markedly from the true Bears. The fourth upper 

 premolar (carnassial) makes no approach to the markedly sectorial type presented 

 by the corresponding tooth ol Hyænarctus, its structure being, on the whole, more 

 like that of Ælurus.'' (pag. 561). 



H. WiNGE^) piaces still more exclusively Æluropus among Ursidæ as a very near 

 relative of the Hyænarctus, these two forming together a branch of the Ursine stem, 

 whereas Ælurus belongs to the Procyonine stem of Procyonidæ whose root is Bas- 

 saris. A true relationship between the two species is thus out of the question. 



But Æluropus was not allowed to stay among the Bears; in 1901 E. Ray Lan- 

 KESTER and R. Lydekker^j asserted, after a careful comparison between its skeleton, 

 especially the limb-bones, and that of Ælurus and Ursus, that it must be closely 

 associated with Ælurus, and should be named the "Greater Panda", not the "Parti- 

 coloured Bear": "In spite of the difference in their dental formula, it appears reason- 

 able that if Ælurus be included in the Procyonidæ, Æluropus should hkewise find a 

 place in the same family, The two may indeed be regarded as the representatives 

 of a subfamily of the Procyonidæ — the Ælurinæ." (p. 171). 



In 1904 Max Weber') following Winge's views placed Æluropus near Hyænarctus 

 among the Ursidæ, and 1913 the present WTiter*) shortly treated the form of the 

 upper carnassial of carnivorous mammals and among those also that of Æluropus. 

 By examination of the position of the roots he tried to prove Winge's assertion that 

 the inner cusps of the carnassial of Æluropus were homologous with those of Ursus, 

 not with those of Ælurus, the anterior one being not the sixth cusp (Winge's indi- 

 cation, = protocone Osborn), but a strongly developed cingulum-cusp. He added : 

 "The other resemblances between Æluropus and Ælurus seem to me to be mostly 

 analogous features due to the adaptation to the same habits" (p. 106). Uf this 

 the present short paper will try to give fuller proofs. 



In the following list I have paralleled some of the characters of Ælurus, Ælu- 

 ropus and Ursus. 



Ælurus. Æluropus. ' Ursus. 



Back rf'''i;-»' Krown, belly Colour yellowish whitc, with Colour of severaJ species 

 biack, fac' with white rings round the oyes, the ears, black, with a whit€ creeoentic 



') li. Winge; Jordfundne og nulevende Hovdyr (Carnivoral fra Lagoa Santa etc. K Museo 

 Lundii 2 bd. 2. halvhd. Kobenhavn 1895—96. 



*) H. Kay Lankestor & K. I.ydekker: On the afnnities of Æhifpui mdandtuau. (Traiuact. 

 i.inn. Soc. lx)ndon, ser. 2, vol. VIII). 



*) Max Weber: Die Saugetiere. Jena \W4. 



*) K. H. Bardenfleth: Notes on the form ^f tli> Camattial Tooth of (Utrnivorous Mammals 

 (Vidensk. Møddeleiaer fra den Naturh. Foren, i København bd. 66). 



