586 PROF. WATSON ON THE ANATOMY OF PROTELES. [June 20, 
The origin of the peroneus 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 Prof¢eles is inserted, as in 
HI, striata and H. crocuta, into the fifth metatarsal alone, while in 
Viverra it is inserted into the first and fifth metatarsals. 
The peroneus brevis in Proteles gives off two tendons as in H. 
erocuta. One of these corresponds to the peronzeus quinti described 
by Macalister in Viverra. 
The interossei 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 Hyzenidee and Viverridee, 
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 Hyena. 
A. H. Young” has well summarized the differences between the 
muscular system of Viverra and Hyena 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 Hyena * (Hyena 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 Hyena. 
“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 Hyena; 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 Hyena 
and differs from Viverra. 
: Loe. cit. p. 496. _® Journal of Anatomy, vol. xiv. p. 177. 
Murie, Trans. Zool. Soe, London, vol. vii. 
