1882.] PROF. ST.-GEORGE MIVART ON THE ^LUROIDEA. 139 



the Caruivora, or be added, as rather aberrant members, to the Mhi- 

 roid section. On the whole," he adds, " I am incHned to the latter 

 arrangement," especially from the support given to it by the genus 

 Proteles. As to the characters of that genus, he observes ' : — " In the 

 first place they are thoroughly ^luroid, but they do not exactly the 

 agree with either of the famihes of that group as hitherto defined. 

 On the whole they approach nearest to the Herpestine section of the 

 Vwerrid(B, but deviate from this, and approximate to the Hycenidce, 

 in two points. ... If Cuvier had called Proteles a Hyaenoid Ich- 

 neumon instead of a Hyaenoid Genette, exception could scarcely have 

 been taken to the description." 



The object of the present paper is to carry further the examination 

 of the affinities and interrelationships of the genera constituting 

 Professor Flower's iEluroidea, and especially to discover wha° 

 divisions below the rank of families can be most conveniently and 

 naturally established in it. In order to effect this, I have, to the 

 best of my ability, studied the animals living in our gardens, prepa- 

 rations preserved in the Museum of the Royal College of Surgeons, 

 and the skins, spirit-specimens, and osteological treasures of the 

 British Museum, and I have dissected such individuals as good 

 fortune has thrown in my way. I have especially wished to note 

 the cranial characters of such genera as are not referred to in the 

 three papers already noticed, namely the genera Fossa, Prionodon, 

 Poiana, Hemigalea, Arctogale, Galidia, Galidictis, Bdeogale, Helo- 

 gale, Cynictis, Rhinogale, Crossarchus, and Uupleres. I have 

 endeavoured also to ascertain and enumerate such papers and illus- 

 trations as may be most useful for reference or may have some 

 historical interest. 



It will, I think, be most convenient if I state at once the conclu- 

 sions I have arrived at as to classification, and afterwards notice, 

 seriatim, the several genera, giving separately the characters and 

 references which refer to each. 



In the first place I am profoundly convinced that the great group 

 .^LUROiDEA is a natural one, and that the Hyeenas must, without 

 any question whatever, be included within it. The only doubt is 

 as to their claim to rank as a distinct family, so closely connected 

 do they seem to me to be with the Herpestine group of Fiveirida. 

 Anyhow I am unable to divide the suborder into so many primary 

 groups as those of Professor Flower. 



I have examined with as much care as I could the skeleton of 

 Crijptoprocta, and considered the evidence recorded as to its soft 

 parts, and have come to the conclusion that it is distinctly Viverrine, 

 and not at all unquestionably intermediate, as I at first supposed, 

 between Yiverra and Felis. Its dentition is of course almost feline ; 

 but the more I study comparative anatomy, the more impressed I 

 am with the little value of dental characters as evidences of affinity, 

 save as regards allied species or genera. Nandinia, Arctictis, and 

 Cynogale may be cited as evidence of divergences in dental charac- 

 ters from the more normal Viverrine type, to which other structural 



* Loo. cit. p. 29. 



