120 Mr. R. I. Pocock on the Species of 



but also in having the heel hairy and the rest of the liind 

 foot naked as in Cryptoprocta, Gynogale, and all the typical 

 genera of Paradoxuiinse, snch as Paradoxurus, Paguma, and 

 ArctogaJidia, in which the liairiness of the heel is so constant 

 a feature that generic importance is attached to it. 



I?ut in the tAvo species next to be noticed, one of whicii 

 was described long ago as Galidictis vittata, the heel is naked 

 to the tip of the calcaneura. These two also resemble one 

 anotiier in the narrowness of the stripes. This in itself 

 could hardly be regarded as of generic value, but it appears 

 to me that that value should be accorded to the nakedness of 

 the heel. 



MuNGOTiCTis, gen. nov. 



Allied to Galidictis, but differing in having the heel naked 

 and the longitudinal stripes narrow. 

 Type, M. vittatus, Gray. 



On Sept. 16, 188G, tlie Zoological Society received as a 

 present trora Mr. B. Muiler two so-called mongooses from 

 JMadagascar, wliich were identified as GaJidia elegans*. 

 Fortunately the skin of one of these, which survived its 

 arrival only ten days, was preserved. A glance is sufficient 

 to show that this s|)ecimen is not Galidia elegans^ but is 

 related to M. vittdtus, Gray. Many years ago I put it aside 

 as that species j but upon comparing it with Gray's type of 

 M. viftatuf, I find sufficient differences to warrant the con- 

 clusion that it represents a new form, which may be described 

 as follows : — 



* This is the specimen referred to by Beddard in his paper upon Gali- 

 dictis striata ( = e.r/wi/».s) as a presumably correctly identilied example of 

 Galidia elegans (P. Z. S. 1907, p. 804). The point to which he drew 

 attention was the presence in this supposed Galidia of P™ ^ , a tooth 

 which, according to Mivart, is absent in that genus, thus constituting one 

 of the diiferences between Galidia and Hemif/alidia — or Salanoia, as it 

 should be called. This claim, however, was invalid at the time Mivart 

 put it forward in 1882, becau.-^e GeoftVoy's tigure of the skull of Galidia 

 elerjans published in 1839 shows this tooth in place. Thus Galidia and 

 tSalaiioia may possess this tooth. Galidictis, on the other hand, is said 

 to be without it — an inference based upon its absence in the slculls of 

 examples identified as G. striata by GeofFroy and Mivart. But it was 

 present, as Beddard stated, in the skull of Miim/otictis suhstriatus. It 

 seems, therefore, that the presence or absence of this tooth is not a 

 generic feature in this group. Probably it has no systematic significance. 



