830 MR. K. I. POCOCK ON THE 



school will probably criticise the classification on the grounds 

 that most of the subfamilies are monotypical. That objection 

 is, however, in my opinion, illogically hollow. Diflerentiating 

 characters and degrees of affinity are in danger of being com- 

 pletely lost sight of, if structural variations are disregarded 

 because of their restriction to an isolated genus represented by 

 two or three, or even a single species. And I can see no logical 

 halting-place between some such amplification of Gill's classifica- 

 tion as that here proposed and the classification of Turner (Proc. 

 Zool. Soc. 1848, p. 86), who admitted no names for subordinate 

 sections in tbe group. Either method of dealing with the 

 numerous genera is preferable to the superficial and dissatisfying 

 system proposed by Flower, to which recent authors have 

 adhered. 



a. Hind feet larger tlian forefeet*; head, fur,* tail, and limbs modified in 

 tlie normal mammalian fashion for aquatic life ; kidneys lobulate. 



Subfamily Lutrin^ Gray & Gill. 



Skull shaped very much as in the typical Mustelinte ; cavity 

 of bulla, where known, as in Marti nie, but with roof depressed 

 upon auditory annul us and not extending to pai"occipital process ; 

 palatine foramina maxillary. Basicranial and basifacial axes 

 approximately in one plane. Teetli powerful, upper carnassial 

 with talon large, nearly as long as blade; molar wider than long, 

 but about as large as carnassial ; lower carnassial with long wide 

 heel and large metaconid. Hinil feet with normally proportioned 

 digits, the second and fifth much shorter than third and fourth. 

 Tail long. 



Genera Lutra, Hydrictis, Lutrogale, Amhlovy.v, Aoiii/x, Paraoni/.r, 

 and possibly others. 



In my paper on " The External Characters of some Species of 

 Otters" (Proc. Zool. Soc. 1921, pp. 535-546), reasons were given 

 for regarding the Otters as modified descendants of the Musteline- 

 Martine stock of the Mustelidfe I'ather than of the Meline stock 

 as suggested by Miller. 



Subfamily LataxiNiE, nom. nov. 

 (=. Enhych'ince Gray & Gill.) 



Differing from the Lutrinas in having the hind feet very large 

 and paddle-like, with digits subequal, but the fifth slightly longer 

 than the tliird or fouith ; the tail short, the basicranial axis 

 depressed at an angle upon basifacial axis ; the angidar of the 



* Flower's frequently copied statement that the feet in the Lutrinos are " short 

 and rounded " is nnintelligible. The feet of the Melinip, on the contrary, he described 

 as " elongated." 



