4 2-4 On some External Charactera 0/ Cryptoprocta. 



tl\e Felida?, and even stated by Filliol to resemble it (R. Acad. 

 Sci. Paris, exviii. p. 100*2, 1894), it is necessary to assert 

 positively that no nienihor of the Felidie possesses a penis 

 like that of Cryptoproda in any important characters. The 

 penis in the cats is always short, the fjlaus is conical and 

 spicular or smooth, the prepuce is close in front of the 

 scrotum, and there is at most a small bone in the glans. 



The only zEluroid penis known to me, which, in the length 

 of the glans and its armature of spicules, recalls that of 

 Cryptoproda is the penis of VcKjuma and Paradoxvrus. In 

 these genera the greater part of the glans is subcylindrical 

 and covered with spicules above and below, but it ends in a 

 short, smootb, styliform point, uponAvhich the orifice of the 

 iirethra opens. This smooth-pointed termination is probably, 

 I think, the homologuc of the very much larger and longer, 

 smooth, clavate termination seen in Cryptoproda. Similarly, 

 the undifferentiated spicular portion in Paguma is probably 

 the homologuc of the very specialised spicular portion seen 

 in the Mascarene animal. But, despite these somewhat 

 remote resemblances, it must be remembered that the glans 

 penis of Paguma and Paradoxurus, long though it be, is 

 unsupported by bone, as also is the very long penis of 

 Ilyana and Proteles *. 



The external genitalia of the female are no less remark- 

 able than those of the male, as Lonnberg has shown (Bih. Sv. 

 Vet.-Akad. Handl. xxviii. pt. 4, no. 3, 1902), The very large 

 peniform clitoris is provided with a bone and armed 

 anteriorly with spicules. It protrudes from a well-developed 

 prepuce, about two inches in front of the anal sac, the 

 urogenital orifice opens just behind the clitoris, and this 

 orifice, with the prepuce and clitoris, is at the extremity of 

 a conical, pendulous, and movable prominence (fig. 4, F). 

 In their general arrangement these parts were compared 

 both by Filhol and Lonnberg to the corresponding parts of 

 Crocuta as described by Watson. No other ^luroid shows 

 any special resemljlance to Cryptoproda, so far as the 

 parts discussed are concerned. Certainly the Felidse 

 and Mungotidse do not. 



If the current classification of the ^luroidea into Felidse, 

 Viverridae, Hysenidse, and Protelidje be adhered to, there is, 

 in my opinion, no escape from Mivart's opinion that CrypAo- 

 procta must be ranked with the Viverridae, where Bennett 



* In connection with the long bony penis of Crypfojvocta, it is 

 interesting to recall Pollen's record, made on the testimonj- of natives, 

 that these animals copulate after the manner of dogs. So also do bears 

 and h} SRnas. The method of cats is, of course, totallv different. 



