140 PROF. ST.-GEORGE MIVART ON THE .ELUROIDEA. [Feb. 7, 



divergences do not run parallel. Professor Flower himself has 

 remarked h — " 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 modifications are mainly adaptive, and not essentially indica- 

 tive of affinity, they reappear in various degrees and combinations in 

 many of the great natural divisions of the order. Their teeth alone 

 afford us no satisfactory means of diagnosis between the very distinct 

 groups of the Procyonidce and Viverridce. 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, tlie teeth of Gulo are so 

 similar to those of Hycena, that, if this character alone were used, 

 these two otherwise widely differentiated forms would be placed in 

 the closest proximity. Enhydris, among the Mustelidas, and Cyno- 

 gale, among the Viverridse, might also be cited as examples of 

 strangely modified dentition, with comparatively little corresponding 

 change in other parts." I thoroughly agree with every word 

 here cited ; and, until unexpected evidence as to the anatomy of its 

 soft parts comes to ray knowledge, I must rank Cryptoprocta as 

 merely the type of a subfamily of the Viverridts. 



As to Proteles, the words just quoted from Professor Flower con- 

 cerning it confirm the previously cited remark of ]\Ir. Turner ^, that 

 from a " dentition so singularly modified by arrest of development, 

 but little evidence of zoological affinity can be adduced." It differs 

 from the Hyaenas in having a developed poUex ; but such differences 

 occur in the Herpestine section of the ViverridcB, yet no one on that 

 account would erect Bdeogale and Suricata into a distinct family, any 

 more than Ateles or Colobus amonsst the Anthropoidea. A careful 

 consideration of the characters of Proteles have convinced me that it 

 should be included within one family along with the Hyaenas ; and 

 Professor Flower, in his paper on the anatomy of Proteles, concludes ^ 

 by saying that, though still " inclined " to retain it in a distinct 

 family, yet his examination of its soft parts shows its affinities 

 with the Hyaenas " are closer than the examination of the skull 

 alone led" him " to suppose." I would, however, while merging it in 

 the Hysena family, yet retain it as the type of a distinct subfamily of 

 the Hycanidce. 



If my views are correct, then the suborder iEluroidea will consist 

 of three families — (1) the Felidce, (2) the Viverridee, and (3) the 

 Hycenidce. 



As to the first of these familie?, it is evidently impossible to group 

 any of its existing forms in distinct subfamilies. Indeed, in a recent 

 careful study of the Felida, I have been quite unable to find satisfac- 

 tory characters whereby to divide that family into more than the 

 t^^■o genera Felis and Cyncelurus. 



1 P. Z. S. 1869, p. 5. " = P. Z. SI. 1848, p. 82. = P. Z. S. 1869, p. 406. 



