1869.] CLASSIFICATION OF THE CARNIVORA. 5) 
Too exclusive attention has been paid to the characters of the teeth 
in defining the family divisions of the order. The difficulty in the 
taxonomic use of these organs arises from the fact that the teeth 
of all the members of such a limited and well-defined group as the 
terrestrial or fissipedal Carnivora are formed on the same general 
type, but with infinite modifications of this type. And as these mo- 
difications are mainly adaptive and not essentially indicative of affi- 
nity, they reappear in various degrees and combinations in many of 
the great natural divisions of the order. Thus, as will be shown 
further on, teeth alone afford us no satisfuctory means of diagnosis 
between the very distinct groups of the Procyonide and the Viverride. 
The teeth of Proteles, though demonstrating undeniably its right 
to a place in the order, are so rudimentary or generalized that they 
afford no help whatever to determine its special position. Again the 
teeth of Gulo are so similar to those of Hyena, that if this character 
alone were used, these two otherwise widely differentiated forms would 
be placed in the closest proximity. Enhydris, among the Mustelide, 
and Cynogale, among the Viverridz, might also be cited as examples 
of strangely modified dentition, with comparatively little correspond- 
ing change in other parts. 
Rather more than twenty years ago the late Mr. H. N. Turner*, 
in a paper read before this Society, pointed out the importance of 
certain structural peculiarities of the base of the cranium in the 
classification of the Mammalia, and especially demonstrated the con- 
stancy of these characters in the various members of the natural 
divisions of the order Carnivorat+. Very few subsequent zoological 
writers, however, have followed out the indications suggested in that 
communication ; and Mr. Turner’s views as to the position of certain 
disputed forms, and the general relationship of the groups one to 
another, have not by any means met with universal acceptance. 
It seems desirable therefore to test whether the characters chiefly 
relied upon by Mr. Turner really have the value which he attributed 
to them. In endeavouring to do this I shall find it necessary to 
give a more detailed description than the limits of his paper allowed, 
to supply a larger number of illustrative examples, and, while fully 
recognizing the great merit of his observations, may find myself 
occasionally obliged to differ from the conclusions which he deduced 
from them. 
It may be objected at the outset that such an investigation cannot 
be worth the pains bestowed upon it, as any classification founded 
solely or even mainly on one limited portion of the organization 
must necessarily be an artificial one. But if it can be proved that 
the modifications of any one part are always correlated with impor- 
tant variations in several other and quite unconnected portions of the 
organization, it is obvious that its study will become of great practical 
* This original and accurate observer fell a victim to his zeal for his favourite 
science, having died in 1851 from the effects of a dissection-wound. 
+ “Observations relating to some of the Foramina in the Base of the Skull in 
Mammalia, and on the Classification of the Order Carnivora,” by H. N. Turner, 
jun. (P. Z. 8. 1848, p. 63). 
