1882.] PROF. ST.-GEORGE MIVART ON THE ZLUROIDEA. 139 
the Carnivora, or be added, as rather aberrant members, to the Ailu- 
roid section. On the whole,” he adds, “I am inclined to the latter 
arrangement,” especially from the support given to it by the genus 
Proteles. Asto 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 families of that group as hitherto defined. 
On the whole they approach nearest to the Herpestine section of the 
Viverride, but deviate from this, and approximate to the Hyenide, 
in two points. . . . If Cuvier had called Proteles a Hyzenoid Ich- 
neumon instead of a Hyzenoid 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 Ailuroidea, and especially to discover what 
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 Eupleres. 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 
JALUROIDEA is a natural one, and that the Hyzenas must, without 
any question whatever, be included within it. The only doubt is 
as to their claim to rank asa distinct family, so closely connected 
do they seem to me to be with the Herpestine group of Viverride. 
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 
Cryptoprocta, 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 Viverra 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 
1 Loe. cit. p. 29. 
