768 PROF. W. H. FLOWER ON ZLURUS FULGENS. [Nov. 15, 
The tooth is also, relatively to the others, much smaller than in the 
rest of the Carnivora. In the Procyonide the sectorial has a very 
broad inner lobe, usually with an anterior and a posterior cusp, and 1s 
supported by a distinct third root, median in position as regards the 
blade. In Alurus the inner lobe is still larger, having, besides the 
two cusps, a more internal one upon the cingulum, and is supported 
by a large antero-median third root. Even the tooth in front of this 
has a large inner lobe, apparently supported on a third root, which 
exists in no other carnivore; but this is in conformity with the 
general characteristic, viz. great transverse breadth, of the whole 
molar series. 
Although the molar teeth of Zlurus, at first sight, appear so dif- 
ferent from those of any other carnivore, a close examination shows 
that they are essentially formed upon the same plan as those of Pro- 
cyon, the differences arising from the sharper and more pronounced 
condition of the cusps, and the greater development and cuspidation 
of the external and, especially, the internal cingulum. These differ- 
ences are certainly less than many which occur in different genera of 
other recognized families, the Mustelide or Viverride for example ; 
and it would be difficult to formulate them as family characteristics, 
especially if the equally aberrant Cercoleptes has to be included in 
the definition of the Procyonide. 
The presence or absence of a bridge of bone on the outer side of 
the pterygoid plate of the alisphenoid, forming an “alisphenoid 
canal,’ through which the external carotid artery passes, has been 
shown to be remarkably constant in the different minor groups or 
families of the Carnivora *, all the true Urside having this canal, 
and all known Procyonide and Mustelide, without exception, want- 
ing it. Alurus in this respect agrees with the Urside, and is sepa- 
rated from the Procyonide; and though this character must have 
some importance, it may fairly be considered questionable whether 
alone it is sufficient to constitute a family distinction. 
The exceptional habitat of 4/urus may also be taken into account, 
all the true Procyonide being confined to the New World; but al- 
though it would be more satisfactory in some respects to find strue- 
tural characters agreeing with geographical distribution, there are 
too many cases of the contrary to lay much stress upon this cireum- 
stance. Both the nearly allied families Urside and Mustelide are 
very widely distributed, the latter being almost cosmopolitan ; and 
there is no @ priori reason, except paucity of species, why the Pro- 
cyonide should not be so also. 
Of the general affinities and position of A/urus, I do not doubt 
that they are indicated by the place I assigned to it in the dia- 
gram of the relations of the existing Carnivora in a former communi- 
cation (P. Z. 8.1869, p.37). The only question is whether, as a 
matter of convenience, we should draw the line which includes the 
Procyonide round this Asiatic genus also, or whether, as in that 
diagram, we should keep Zlurus outside that group, as a member of 
* See H. N. Turner, P. Z. 8. 1848, p. 63; and also W. H. Flower, ibid. 
1869, -p. 4. 
