1864.] DR. J. E. GRAY ON THE VIVERRID&. 527 
If M. Temminck had observed many of these animals alive, he 
would have found that many of them have the habit of curling up 
the end of the tail as it lies on the ground, and that the ends of 
the tails of those in confinement are often worn away on the side 
from this habit (see also Bennett, P. Z.S. 1835, p. 118). 
M. Temminck describes the claws as “not retractile’’ (Monogr. 
ii. p. 312); but Mr. Turner, in his interesting observations on the ana- 
tomy of Paradoxurus typus, describing the feline habit of the animal, 
states that the claws are quite as retractile, and scale off at the ends 
to keep them sharp, as in the Cat ; he also says the preputial gland 
secretes the odorous exhalation (see Proc. Zool. Soc. 1849, p. 24). 
‘The Paradoxuri are in habits like the Civets; their glandular 
secretion is peculiar, not civet- or musk-like.”—Cantor, Cat. 32. 
Tail very long; caudal vertebree 36 or 38. 
The species of this group have been very imperfectly understood. 
In the ‘ Proceedings of the Zoological Society’ for 1832 I gave a 
monograph of the species which the specimens and other materials 
then available afforded ; and I revised the species in the ‘ Magazine 
of Natural History’ for 1837. The number of species described 
being so much larger than was then known on the Continent, seems 
to have excited the distrust of the Continental zoologists as to their 
distinctness. 
M. Temminck, in the second volume of his ‘ Monographie,’ pub- 
lished an essay on the genus, and states that he was indebted to Mr. 
Ogilby for his assistance. But I fear he must have misunderstood 
some of Mr. Ogilby’s observations ; for I can hardly think that an 
English zoologist, who, from his position as Secretary of the Zoolo- 
gical Society, must have seen many species of the genus alive, could 
have had such an imperfect acquaintance with the specimens that 
are to be seen in our menageries. 
M. Temminck’s ‘ Monograph’ is accurate as far as regards the 
species which inhabit the Asiatic possessions now or formerly under 
the Dutch rule. But M.Temminck seems to be entirely unac- 
quainted with the species of continental India and China; he con- 
fused, under the same description, species that are very unlike in 
external characters : some of his figures of the skull do not agree with 
the skulls of the species which we have extracted from the skins. 
I may observe that it was formerly the great defect of the osteo- 
logical collection at Leyden that many of the skeletons had been 
purchased at sales of private collections in London and elsewhere ; 
so that the accuracy of the determination of the species from which 
the skulls were obtained solely depended on the accuracy or know- 
ledge of the proprietor, generally more of an anatomist than a zoolo- 
gist ; and as the skin was not kept, there was no means of verifying 
the name. Hence it is very likely the Nepal P. grayi was called in 
the collection from which it was obtained P. musanga of Java. M. 
Schlegel has been remedying this defect by the preparation of ske- 
letons from well-determined specimens. 
M. Jourdan observes, ‘‘ Ce que nous pouvons dire c’est que dans 
la collection ostéologique du Muséum il existe des tétes osseuses qui, 
