3.")6 Mr. R. I. Pocock oil some of (lie 



(Hicntly (Icsciibcd tlic tocsa'^ " lialf-wcbbed " (Cliailosworth's 

 Mag. Nat. Hist. i. p. 579, 183"). Again, Eytloux and 

 Soulcyet (Voy. de la ' Bonite,' i. p. 27, 1811)' wrote: — 

 " Scs doigts sout palines antericureiueut et postorieuremeiit, 

 mais ils sont pen allonges.^^ Later, (xray (P. Z. S. 1864, 

 p. 521, aud Cat. Carn. Brit. Mus. p. 78, 18()9) described the 

 toes as " being short, covered witli dense hairs and slightly 

 webbed at the base " ; and certainly his omission to mention 

 the webs on the feet of other Paiadoxurine civets justifies 

 in a measure the conclusion that the webs are ])eculiar to 

 Ci/tioffale. 



This conclusion was apparently drawn by Mivart, when he 

 wrote (P. Z. S. 188.2, p. 172) :— " Its webbed feet, short 

 tail, long moustaches, together with its exceptional upper 

 lij), serve, however, to mark it as a vcrv distinct genus. '^ 

 Blinford ('Mammalia of British India,'* 1888, p. 119) also 

 referred to the webbed feet as a ])eculi;)rity. Flower and 

 Lydekker, however (' Mammalia,' 1891, p. 535), with more 

 caution, repeated verbatim Gray's description of 1864 : 

 " Toes short, slightly webbed at base " ; but the second of 

 these two authors (' Handbook to the Carnivora,' 1896, 

 p. 242) introduced for this animal the trivial title " The web- 

 footed Civet," and in his diagnosis of it said : — ''This genus 

 may be easily recognized by the absence of a vertical groove 

 on the upper lip, the short tail, the partially webbed feet, 

 and by the under surface of the tarsus and metatarsus being 

 ratlur less naked than in the Palm-Civets" — this last item 

 being derived from Mivart's description of 1882. 



A knowledge of the facts enforces the conclusion that the 

 authors quoted never compared the feet of Cynor/ale with 

 those of its nearest allies, all of which, like most Carnivores, 

 have the digits webbed up to the proximal end of the digital 

 pads. An inspection of the feet even on a dried skin of 

 Cynof/ale — from w hich the figure of the hind foot published 

 by Mivait in 1882 seems to have been taken — shows clearly 

 that the \\ebs do nut extend farther up the digits than is the 

 case in Paradoxums, for example. More than that, I find 

 that in the above-mentioned example in alcohol in the 

 British Museum the ends of the digits project farther 

 beyond the webs than in any genus of Paradoxurines known 

 toine. The webs do not reach the proximal margins of the 

 digital pads either in the fore foot or in the hind foot ; but 

 what the webs lose in depth they gain in breadth. They 

 are broader than in any other Paradoxurine or Viverrine 

 genus, and the digits are capable consequently of wider 

 lateral expansion. In that sense, and that only, are the feet 



