DOG LRIBEL. 493 
with the one given on p. 449, it will be seen that the excess in the number of 
the teeth of a dog over those of a civet is owing to the presence of an additional 
pair of molars in the lower jaw. This will not, however, serve to distinguish 
between all the dogs and the civets, since the Indian wild dogs have but two pairs 
of lower molars. In all cases there are four premolar teeth on each side of both 
jaws. The cheek-teeth of the dogs are constructed on the same general plan as 
those of the civets, the upper flesh-tooth having but two lobes to the blade, while 
the lower flesh-tooth has a large heel posteriorly to the cutting-blade; this heel 
being, however, relatively smaller than in the civets. In both dogs and civets, the 
molars of the upper jaw have the same general triangular form. A good idea of 
the characters of the 
cheek-teeth of the dogs 
will be gathered from the 
accompanying figure, 
while the skull repre- 
sented on p. 352 shows 
the lateral aspect of the 
whole dental series. 
There are other char- 
acters connected with the 
skull, together with many 
points in the structure of 
the soft parts, which afford 
additional means of dis- 
3 incisors, } canines, ¢ premolars, and 2 molars. If this formula be compared 
tinguishing the dogs from 
other Carnivores, but the | ay la t| | sz. 2 1S larger 
above are sufficient to : B 
define the group, so far 
es THE RIGHT UPPER AND LOWER CHEEK-TEETH OF THE COMMON FOX (A, 4’) 
as lhving forms are con- AND OF AZARA’S FOX (B, B’). 
cerned. The letters p.m.1 to p.m.4 indicate the premolar, and m.1 to m.3 the molar 
In their general uni- teeth; ».m.4 in the upper and m.1 in the lower jaw, being the flesh-tooth. 
In m.1 of the lower jaw 6 indicates the hinder lobe of the cutting-blade, and 
formity of structure and a its inner cusp. (From Proc. Zool. Soc.—After Huxley.) 
outward appearance, the 
dogs differ widely from the civets, and more nearly resemble the cats. There is a 
considerable amount of difference in external appearance between a fox and a 
wolf, but intermediate forms connect them so closely that they are generally 
considered as members of a single genus. On the other hand, three members of 
the family differ so remarkably from all the rest, and also from one another, that 
they are regarded as the representatives of as many genera. Some diversity 
of opinion exists as to the advisability of also referring the Asiatic wild dogs to a 
distinct genus, but they are here classed in the typical genus Canis. We thus 
have the whole of the existing members of the family ranged under four genera, 
of which the last three are severally represented by a single species. 
With the marked exception of the Cape hunting-dog, all the members of the 
family are characterised by their more or less uniform and sombre coloration ; in 
