CHARACTERS OF THE TROCYONID^. 391 



be compared and contrasted, the only character quite in- 

 adequately dealt with being the feet, wherein he would have 

 found considei'able corroborative evidence supporting his opinion 

 of the Ursine affinities of Ailuropocla. 



The latest classification was published in 1916 by Hollister 

 (Proc. U.S. Nat. Mus. 49, pp. 141-150), who, following Gray and 

 Gill, separated Bassariscus from the rest of the genera, his 

 grouping being as follows: — Fam. 1. Bassariscidss {Bassariscus); 

 Fam. 2. Procyonidfe (Aihorus, Procyon, JSfasua, Nasuella *, Bas- 

 saricyon, Potos). This grouping involves the coiiflusion that 

 the affinity between Ailurus and Procyon or Potos is greater 

 than the afiinity between Procyon or Potos and Bassariscus, a 

 conclusion which, in my opinion, is quite indefensible. With 

 regard also to the affinities of Potos and Bassariscus with the 

 other genera, I cannot agree with Hollister, whose opinion with 

 regard to the dentition of Bassariscus may be contrasted with 

 that of Flower when he wrote in 1869 " Cercolepies \_Potos'\ 

 deviates in its dentition from the more typical members of the 

 groTAp far more than Bassaris iBassariscus'], though in a precisely 

 opposite direction." 



From the above-given review it will be evident that there is 

 no sort of unanimity on the three following points: — (1) The 

 position of Ailuropodaf. Some authors claim that the genus 

 belongs to the Ursidse ; others place it in the Procyonida?. 

 (2) The position oi AihtrusX, some authors regarding it as the 

 type of a special family, others, in a majority, placing it in the 

 Procyonidse. (3) The constitution of the so-called Procyonidse 

 of America. Every genus has at various times been made the 

 representative of a special family or subfamily. Justification for 

 this course is to be found in the much greater differences that 

 exist between them than between the genera of Felidse, Canidffi, 

 and other compact families of Cai-nivora. 



This variety of opinions calls for a revision of the questions at 

 issue in the light of other characters than those supplied by the 

 teeth, skull, and skeleton, which have mainly been used. Gray, 

 it is true, employed the feet to a certain extent, but he was 

 compelled to depend very largely upon dried skins, and most 

 authors attach comparatively slight importance to external 

 characters. 



During the past few years I have been making sketches of the 

 feet, ears, rhinaria., and other external orgaiis of the Carnivora 

 that have died in the Gardens of the Zoological Society : and the 



* To illustrate the differences between Nasua and Nasuella and justify the 

 creation of the latter, Hollister seems to have selected skulls exhibiting extremes of 

 variation. I have skulls of Nasua almost intermediate between the two figures. 



t This was the name originally given to the genus by Milne Edwards ; but he 

 subsequentlj' changed it to Ailnropvs because Gray had previously emploj-ed the 

 name ^luropoda for a section of the Carnivora comprising the Felidae, Mustelidse, 

 and other families. Gray's action, however, did not invalidate the use of AiJuropoda 

 in a generic sense. I have, therefore, retained it. 



J The original spelling of this name is also adhered to in this paper. 



