202 P. N. Bose—History of the Extinct Carnivora. 
II.—NorkEs on tHe History AND CoMPARATIVE ANATOMY OF THE 
Extinct Carnivora. 
By P. N. Bosz, B.Sc. (Lond.), F.G.S. 
J.—Eocrenre Perron. 
§ 1. Introduction—Historical and Bibliographical. 
T the beginning of this century nothing whatever was known 
about the history of the Carnivora in the Eocene period. In 
1825, in the second edition of his ‘“‘ Recherches sur les Ossements 
fossiles,” Cuvier described certain fossil bones from the Gypseous 
Series as belonging to a Carnivore allied to the Racoons and the 
Coatis.' Ten years afterwards,’ having obtained a palate from the 
same beds, furnished with five teeth on one side and four on the other, 
he referred the palate, as well as the bones alluded to above, to a genus 
allied to Didelphis. De Blainville, in his ‘“‘ Osteographie,” founded 
on these bones a genus allied to the Badger, which he placed amongst 
the “‘ Petits Ours” (Suburside), under the title of Taxotherium,* 
while he referred the supposed Didelphoid teeth of Cuvier to a 
distinct genus, Péierodon,* to which also he assigned a place in the 
same group. 
The establishment of a novel and highly interesting genus in 
1888,° by Laizer and Parieu, on a lower jaw from certain deposits 
of the Inferior Miocene age, marked an epoch in the history of the 
Carnivora. It was in a happy moment—unhappy, no doubt, for 
Hyenodon—that this creature was disturbed from the repose it had 
enjoyed for so many ages. Its discoverers associated it with the 
Thylacine and the Dasyure. But De Blainville refuted their argu- 
ments,® and in his ‘“Osteographie,’ the MHyenodon leptorhynchus of 
Laizer and Parieu was placed in the group of the Canide.’ The 
discovery of more perfect specimens of Hyenodon by M. Felix 
Dujardin opened afresh the question of its affinities. Dujardin 
reverted to the original hypothesis of Laizer and Parieu; and he was 
supported by Pomel. De Blainville was so far influenced by the 
discovery of Dujardin as to make room for Hyenodon in his group 
of the “ Petits Ours”; but at the same time he added a note of 
interrogation after it, expressing, no doubt, his suspicion as to its 
genericidentity.° Laurillard” and Pictet" incorporated the Taxotherium 
and Pterodon of De Blainville with Hyenodon. But the accomplished 
writer in the Dictionary of Natural History decided in favour of the 
Marsupial affinities of this genus. Pictet, however, maintained its 
AOD eNerinmbs alley ile 
“Rech. sur les Ossem. foss.”” 4th edit. t. v. p. 490. 
op. cit. gen Subursus, p. 55, pl. xii. 
op. cit. gen. Subursus, p. 48, pl. xi. 
‘‘ Comptes rendus de 1’ Acad. des Sc.’ 1838, 2¢ sér. p. 442. 
“ Comptes rendus de |’ Acad. des Sc.’’ 1838, 2° sér. p. 1004. 
op. cit. gen. Canis, p. 111. 
Bull. Soe. Geol. de Fr. 2¢ sér. t. 1, p.591; t. v. p. 385. . 
‘‘Osteographie,” gen. Subursus, p. 102, pl. xvii. Subsequently H. brachy- 
rhynchus was transferred to the Canide, ‘ Ost.” Canis, p. 113. 
10 Dict. d’ Hist. Nat.” t. vi. p. 767. 
i «<Tyraité de Pal.” t, i. p- 196. 
at naw Fw wo 
=) 
