518 Mr. R. T. Pocock on the 



3. The ear had the external portion of tlie pinna small as 

 compared with the depression containing tiie cartilages, and 

 there was no marginal bursa. Of the cartilages, the snpra- 

 tragus was rod-like and the prominence of the antero-internal 

 rido;e {intratragus) ended high above the intertragal notch 

 leading to the inferior auditory meatus. 



4. The feet were semijilantigrade and pentadactyle, with 

 tlie pollex and hallux inserted above the plantar pad, which 

 was trilobate, not quadrilobate ; the four main digits, armed 

 with long fossorial claws, were united by interdigital webs 

 extending to the proximal ends of the small digital pads ; the 

 fore feet were naked back to the carpal pad and the hind feet 

 up to and possibly including the heel. 



5. The orifices of the anal glands were outside the anus, 

 and their secretion was discharged into a nearly naked 

 glandular cutaneous sack with a tliickened rim and capable 

 of being closed by the juxtaposition of tlie upper and lower 

 halves of this rim. 



6. The vulva was only a short distance below the lower 

 edge of the anal sack and the penis was short and situated 

 close to the scrotum, there being no trace of a preputial gland 

 between the penis and scrotum in the male or between the 

 anal sack and the vulva in the female. 



None of the existing genera conforms precisely to this 

 tyjie. Apart from Suricata, to be considered later, all o£ 

 them have ears more complex in construction, owing to the 

 formation of the two valvular laminse. 



Of the genera with complex ears, Mungos (type ?nMn^o),in 

 a hroad sense, with its pentadactyle naked feet, well-webbed 

 digits, and cleft Ujiper lip and moderate snout, agrees with 

 the primitive type, but it difl'ers therefrom in its carnivorous 

 dentition, tlie upper carnassial {pm*) being large and set back 



the conclusion that the specialized carnivorous dentition of Genetta and 

 Linsany preceded iu evolution the generalized omnivorous dentition of 

 Paradoxnrus and Fossa respectively. Also that the similarity between 

 the teeth of Gendla and Munyos in number, position, and form is a 

 character inherited almost unchanged from a common ^luroid ancestor. 

 I believe, on the contrary, that it is a purely adaptive resemblance, and 

 that the carnivorous type of dentition, attested more particularly by the 

 retrogression of the upper carnassial (/;?«*), accompanied by reduction in 

 the size and importance of the two molars behind it and of the first 

 premolar, has been independently acquired several times over within tlie 

 limits of the yEluroidea ; and that the extraordinarily varied types of 

 dentition met with in this group have been derived sometimes by elabo- 

 ration, sometimes by defeneration from some such type as that of the 

 tyjjical Caiiida?, in wliich the upper cai-nassial is set far forwards, leaving 

 space for two fairly large molars behind it. 



