586 PROF. WATSON ON THE ANATOMY OF PROTELES. [Juue 20, 



The origin of the peronceus longus is confined in Proteles to the 

 tibia and fibula, whereas in H. crocuta it has an additional origin 

 from the external condyle of the femur. In this respect Proteles 

 agrees with Viverra. The muscle in Proteles is inserted, as in 

 H. striata and H. crocuta, into the fifth metatarsal alone, while in 

 Viverra it is inserted into the first and fifth metatarsals. 



The 'peroncEus hrevis in Proteles gives off two tendons as in H. 

 crocuta. One of these corresponds to the peronseus quinti described 

 by Macalister in Viverra. 



The interossci of Proteles resemble those of H. crocuta. They 

 are eight in number, two being attached to each toe. 



In all respects, except those above mentioned, the muscular 

 anatomy of Proteles exactly resembles that of H. crocuta. 



Professor Flower' has expressed his opinion, founded on a careful 

 examination of its skeleton and visceral anatomy, that Proteles should 

 be placed in a family by itself allied to both Hyaenidae and Viverridse, 

 but having closer affinities with the former. That conclusion is fully 

 borne out by an examination of the muscular anatomy of the animal. 

 For, while agreeing in many points above referred to with Viverra, 

 the muscular system of Proteles as a whole presents a much closer 

 approach to that of Hyeena. 



A. H. Young ^ has well summarized the differences between the 

 muscular system of Viverra and Ply ana as follows : — 



"In the Civet the cleido-mastoid is distinct from the sterno- 

 mastoid ; there is also a well-marked splenius colli, and a separate 

 trachelo-mastoid. Three scalene muscles are distinguishable ; but 

 in this respect one species of Hycena ^ {Hyana brunnea) agrees with 

 the Civet. In the fore limb of Viverra the presence of a long 

 supinator and a flexor brevis manus, together with the double nature 

 of the palmaris longus, the absence of an ulnar insertion of the 

 biceps, and the more marked development and differentiation of the 

 hand muscles, is in striking contrast with what obtains in Hycena. 



" The hind limb of the Civet possesses an additional gluteus 

 (quartus), and a semimembranosus, which is not attached to the 

 adductor. There are also a well- developed soleus, and three separate 

 peroneal muscles. Other points worthy of note are to be observed 

 in the undivided condition of the sartorius, the double insertion of 

 the pectineus, the caudal origin of the semitendinosus, and the pro- 

 longation of the plantaris tendon to form an origin for the flexor 

 brevis digitorum, whilst in the foot, as in the hand, the intrinsic 

 muscles are well-developed and differentiated. 



" In all these respects the Civet differs from the Hycena ; the 

 enormous development of the muscles of the neck and fore quarters 

 in the latter animal, which is so characteristic of its genus, has no 

 counterpart in the Civet." 



An examination of the muscular anatomy of Proteles shows that 

 in all these important particulars, with the single exception of that 

 which relates to the scalene muscles, that genus agrees with Hycena 

 and differs from Viverra. 



' Loc. cif. p. 496. = Journal of Anatomy, vol. xiv. p. 177. 



' Miirie, Trans. Zool. Soe. Loudon, vol. vii. 



