CHARACTERS OF THE PROCYONID^. 41 7 



sui3sequently abandoned by the latter and by most recent 

 authors. 



Poios, too, has several peculiarities in its external characters as 

 Avell as in its skull and teeth ; aiid probably no one will cavil at 

 the adoption of Trouessart's view that it shotild stand as the 

 representative of a special subfamily of Procyonidse, namely 

 Potosinse. 



The status of the remaining genera is not so easy to settle. 

 Taking first the older known forms, Procyon^ Nasua, and Bassa- 

 risGus, there does not seem to be evidence of any close affinity 

 between them, a fact clearly perceived by Gray and Gill, although 

 by making JVasua and Procyon the types of special subfamilies of 

 Procyonidse, Gill expressed his idea of closer kinship between 

 them than between either of them and Bassariscus, which he kept 

 in a famil}' apart. Even quite recently Hollister has adopted the 

 view that Bassariscus should rank as a separate family. 



The discovery of Bassaricyoii, since the time of Gray and Gill, 

 does not help matters, since the genus is equally isolated and 

 serves in no respect to affiliate any two of the other three. The 

 four genera, in fact, difi'er in a large number of characteis, to any 

 one of which full generic value would be granted nowadays ; and 

 the logical inference to be drawn from this argument is that the 

 sum of the characters demands supergeneric recognition, which 

 should be expressed systematically by elevating the genera, to the 

 lank of subfamilies. Further justification for this course may be 

 found in following the present day tendency to grant full generic 

 value to the characters upon which such foims as Etiqjrocyon, 

 Nasuella, and JentinMa were founded. We shall then have the 

 Procyoninfe, the Nasuinje, and the Bassariscinte with two genera 

 each and the Bassaricyoninse with one. 



The Position q/^ Ailuropoda. 



The question of the systematic position of Ailuropoda cannot 

 be passed by in a paper dealing with the Procyonidse, since the 

 genus has been referred to that family. Mihie Edwards con- 

 tented himself with pointing out the resemblances between 

 Ailuropoda and Ailurus on the one hand, and Ailuropoda and 

 the Ursidse on the other. And, so far as I am aware, Mivai^t was 

 the first author definitelj^ to state the opinion that Ailuropoda is 

 more nearly akin to the Procyonidse, with which it is afliliated 

 through Ailurus, than to the TJrsidse ; and this opinion found 

 practical expression in the ascription of Ailuropoda to the 

 Procyonidse, under a special subfamily also inchiding Aihirus. 

 Mivart's view was adopted, with the support of much additional 

 evidence, by Lankester and Lydekker, and Mivart's classification 

 was independently reached. Finally, Bardenfleth attempted to 

 show that Flower was right in classifying Ailuropodd in the 

 XJrsidse. 



