~ 
314 Mr. R. I. Pocock on the Classification ke. 
The Classification and Generic Nomenclature of F. uncia 
and its Allies. 
In the paper already quoted, I have shown that the five 
species here discussed differ from other existing species of 
Felidee in the structure of the hyoid apparatus. To this 
character, at all events, generic value should be given. But 
it appears to me that the combination of cranial features 
exhibited by /. wncia, particularly in the occipital and 
auditory bones, entitles that species to generic separation 
from F. leo, tigris, pardus, and onca, the skulls of which 
differ in comparatively minor points from each other and 
show many cross-resemblances. 
The view that the external differences observable between 
these species in coloration and hair-growth are worth generic 
recognition does not appeal to me. For example, Gray 
adopted the generic name Leo for F. leo mainly on the 
strength of the secondary sexual characters, which he knew 
to be exceedingly variable in development racially or indi- 
vidually, although he was not aware that they are sometimes 
not developed at all*; and, as regards pattern, I have else- 
where shown { that the markings of F/. leo, as exhibited by 
the cubs, sometimes show a complete transition between the 
stripes of /’. tigris and the spots of F’. onca or pardus, although 
usually, when visible, which is not always the case, ap- 
proaching the rosette type exhibited by the two last mentioned 
species. 
Nevertheless, since the tendency of modern systematic 
mammalogy has found in the present instance expression in 
the admission of many species of leopard, lion, jaguar, aud 
tiger, it is possible, perhaps probable, that the logical out- 
come of that process—namely, the ascription of generic rank 
to each of these animals—will be followed in the future. If 
that be so, nominal symbols are available for them. 
Rejecting the validity of Leo and Tigris, published by 
Frisch m 1775 }, it seems that Oken was the first author 
to introduce generic terms for the leopard, tiger, and lion. 
By pagination the following is the order of their publi- 
cation :— 
Panthera, Oken, Lehrb. Zool. 2nd Abth. pp. 1052-1066 
* Col. Patterson’s man-eating lions of Tsavo were described as maneless, 
and, judging from his photographs, they were not distinguishable, so far 
as the mane is concerned, from lionesses. 
+ Ann. & Mag. Nat, Hist. (7) xx. p. 436 (1907). 
{ Following the decision of Sherborne a of Thomas and Miller, 
Ann. & Mag. Nat. Hist. (7) xvi. p. 461 (1905). 
