1864.]} DR. J. E. GRAY ON THE VIVERRIDA, 505 
cies of the genera Herpestes and Paradozurus, and states that the 
catalogues are encumbered with many double and triple emplois, 
which must be erased from the systematic catalogue. After citing 
some examples of species which have been described nearly simul- 
taneously by zoologists living in distant countries, as H. urinator, 
H. paludosus, H. penicillatus, and Cynictis steedmani (which cer- 
tainly are not instances deserving much blame, especially when we 
consider the many cases in which M. Temminck himself has de- 
scribed species in Holland which had been long previously described 
in England), he proceeds to propose to unite some species which 
are, in my opinion, perfectly distinct (some even belonging to dif- 
ferent sections of the genus) according to characters that are almost 
universally adopted, and which he himself uses in other places. 
In the revision of the genus Paradoxurus in his monograph, and 
again in the above work, he has united together species which have 
not the slightest relation to each other, and which he never could 
have united if he had seen authentic specimens of them. Thus he 
unites P. grayi, P. nipalensis, and P. laniger to P. larvatus, and 
P. crossi and P. pallasii to P. musanga, regarding P. bondar as sepa- 
rate. Now if he had united P. grayi, P. nipalensis, P. laniger, 
P. crossi, and P. bondar together, he would have had the excuse 
that they all have some similarity of external appearance; and he 
might have been misled if he had only casually looked at them 
through the glass of the cases in the museum, as he looked at 
some specimens which he says he saw when in England. Syno- 
nyms cannot be determined by such an examination, nor is science 
advanced by such assertions. 
M. Temminck was an eminent ornithologist, and has studied some 
groups of Mammalia, perhaps not with so much success. He was 
an amiable naturalist, but has carried his political anglophobia (so 
well seen in his ‘ Essay on the Dutch Colonial Possessions’) into his 
zoological studies. This blinded him to the labours of the zoologists 
of this country, the richness of our collection, and thus rendered his 
observations in regard to their work not worthy of attention, as they 
otherwise might have been. It is to be observed that he never had 
a regular scientific training, never attempted to form scientific spe- 
cific characters, and is rather to be regarded as a patron and amateur 
than as a scientific zoologist. He was the first in his country, as 
the late Earl of Derby was in this. 
The arrangement of the genera of Viverridz into natural groups is 
not easy; for though they naturally place themselves together in a 
certain kind of order, the difficulty is to find a character that is 
common to the genera that appear to be most related to each other. 
I published an arrangement of the genera of this family then known, 
according to the characters afforded by the hairiness and baldness of 
the sole of the hind feet, in the ‘ Proceedings of the Zoological So- 
ciety’ for 1832, p. 63, which is well adapted for the purpose, though, 
hike other arrangements, it is not infallible, nor to be used too strictly, 
or it will separate genera naturally allied to each other. 
The continued study of the subject has shown me several other 
