34 MR. W. H. FLOWER ON THE (Jan. 14, 
foramen (g) is large, and occupies precisely the same position as in 
Procyon; and, lastly, there is no alisphenoid canal. 
- There is therefore nothing questionable in the characters of this 
region, nothing showing even the slightest indication of an aberrant 
or transitional form. 
Such other parts of the animal’s anatomy as are known, fully con- 
firm the cranial evidences as to its position. 
Some of the viscera of the specimen which died at the Gardens of 
the Society in 1854, are fortunately preserved in the Museum of the 
Royal College of Surgeons ; and among others a special preparation 
has been made of the junction of the ileum with the colon, confirming 
Gervais’s observation of the total absence of caecum. Unfortunately 
I have not been able to find the organs of generation, if they are 
preserved ; but this important link of evidence is not entirely wanting. 
Gervais and De Blainville have described and figured the os penis of 
the Paris specimen, showing that it conforms to the Arctoid type. 
The former says, “ La verge est soutenue par un os considérable, 
et qui a 0050 en longueur. II offre 4 sa base une espéce de téte ; en- 
suite il est comprimé dans une partie de sa longueur et courbé légére- 
ment, puis courbé en sens inverse, et déprimé a mesure qu’il approche 
de son extrémité libre, dont le bout est élargi et trés-deprimé.”’ 
It will be very interesting, when opportunity offers, to complete the 
description of these parts, because the presence of a large os penis in 
Cryptoprocta shows that this character cannot be absolutely relied 
on as distinctive between the two great #luroid and Arctoid groups. 
The absence of Cowper’s glands, or of a prominent prostate would 
be more decisive. 
Mr. Gulliver, in reference to the size of the blood-corpuscules, says 
“ Bassaris has been alternately associated with the Bears and Viverras; 
as far as regards its corpuscles it agrees best with the Bears’’*. 
On the whole I think there can be little question that evidence 
enough has been adduced to prove that Bassaris is a member of the 
Arctoid subdivision of the Carnivora, and among these approaches 
most nearly to Procyon and Nasua. 
With regard to the group of Seals, which I look upon as essentially 
belonging to the same ordinal division of the Mammalia as the ani- 
mals hitherto treated of, the differences of the cranial characters of 
the three natural families into which they are divisible, Otariide, 
Trichechide, and Phocide, are so well described by Mr. Turner that 
I need only refer to his paper for them. But I must add that I can- 
not agree with him when he says, ‘‘I have not seen in the Seals any- 
thing which, in my opinion, warrants their approximation to any of the 
other families, more than another,”’ or in his placing them and the 
three divisions of the terrestrial Carnivora as primary groups of equal 
value. The differences between the Seals and the terrestrial Car- 
nivora both in teeth and limbs are much greater than any found 
between different members of the latter group. They should there- 
fore constitute in my opinion a distinct suborder, the Mluroid, Cy- 
noid, and Arctoid Carnivora being united to form the other suborder. 
* P.Z. S. 1862, p.96. See also P. Z. S. 1841, p. 43. 
