Characters of Ciyptoprocta. 4 1 n 



the nostril in front — a noticeable non-feline character^ — and 

 their inferior edge extends oblicinely npwards, outwards, and 

 backwards, with a slightly sinuous curvature, and they are 

 continued laterally beneath the narial slits to their posterior 

 end. The upper margin of the rhinariura is widely rounded 

 on each side, and nearly flat on the summit, but for a very 

 shallow median depression. In profile the apex is prominent 

 and oljtusely rounded, 



Carlsson briefly referred to the facial vibrissae, recording 

 the lengths of the niystacials and the presence of others 

 below the eye and on the under jaw. As a matter of fact, 

 the vibrissae are of the normal type found in predatory 

 Carnivores, consisting of the mystacial tuft, two genal tufts, 

 and a superciliary tuft on each side and of a well-developed 

 median interranial tuft below. In this respect Crypto- 

 pructa agrees with the Vivenidte, Mungotidte, Ilysfiuidae, 

 and other non-feline .Eiuroids, and differs from the Felidae 

 in which the interramal tuft is always absent. 



Ear. — Although in his brief description Bennett recorded 

 the presence of the bursa, the ear was not fully described until 

 the publication of Miss Carlsson's paper, where it is pointed 

 out tljat the ear does not ditter in any essential points from 

 that of the Felidse. She draws particular attention to the 

 complete separation of the small ''annular cartilage" from 

 the rest of the ear, as in the Felidse, as compared with its 

 partial severance therefrom in Genetta and Munyos. Her 

 figure further shows the insertion of the posterior flap of the 

 bursa behind the rim of the ear and a deep rounded notch 

 in the anterior flap as in Genetta and Felis. Beyond noting 

 the presence of the marginal bilaminate bursa, I did not 

 critically examine the ear in my example of Cryptoprocta. 



Feet. — As Bennett originally pointed out, the feet of 

 Cryptoprocta resemble those of Paradoxurus in having 

 retractile claws, naked soles, and digits united nearly to 

 their ends, (rood figures of the feet were ))ul)lished by 

 M.-Edwards and (xraudidicr, and inexact copies of these were 

 reproduced by Alivart. Additional figures, with a short 

 description confirming and amplifying Bennett's account, 

 were published by Carlsson. 



Since the above-quoted figures represent the digits in 

 contact, I take this opportunity of issuing new illustrations 

 to facilitate comparison with the figures (;f the feet of other 

 /Eluroidsl havepublished elsewhere; and the description that 

 follows contains references to some interesting structural 

 features not touched upon by previous authors. 



Tiie fore foot is broader than the hind foot and has moru 



28* 



