804 MR. F. E. BEDDARD O:^ THE [NoV. 12, 



dissected. The specimen which I dissected is a female, and 1 

 have preserved the skin for future reference. It died on 

 September 18th last, apparently from congested lungs. The 

 viscera were in an excellent state for anatomical investigation, 

 -save for the fact that the body was rather fat. This, however, 

 has not interfered with the possibility of recording certain facts 

 of importance in the systematic placing of this ^luroid. 



The principal external and osteological characters have been 

 given by the late Dr. Mivart *, who has referred to previous 

 literature upon the genus and upon its immediate allies, Galidia 

 and Heinigalidia (a genus founded by Dr. Mivart in that paper). 

 He distinguishes Hemigcdidia from Galidia and from Galidictis 

 by the fact that the former possesses the first premolar, which is 

 alleged to be missing in both Galidia and Galidictis. This generic 

 distinction cannot, however, be enforced. In a specimen of 

 Galidia elegans, formerly living in the Society's Gardens (it was 

 acquired in 1886), and which is hardly likely to have been 

 wrongly named, the skull shows most distinctly and on both sides 

 the first premolar, a small tooth with only one root. There is 

 obviously, however, no such tooth in Galidictis, where indeed 

 there is no diastema between the canine and premolar 2. It is 

 therefore Galidictis which is to be contrasted with Galidia and 

 Heiyiigalidia (if, indeed, the generic distinction is to be retained), 

 and not the latter genus with the two former in this particular. 

 As to the large size of the canines in Galidictis, I confirm 

 Dr. Mivart's statements. 



The only external character to which I wish to direct attention, 

 is the condition of the glands in the neighbourhood of the anus 

 and of the vulva. Dr. Mivart has figured these parts in a female 

 Genetta tigrinaf, where he indicates clearly the folds of the 

 scent-gland lying behind the vulva and forming externally with 

 the vulva one common region of the integument. In a later part 

 of the same paper +, Dr. Mivart distinguishes the Viverrinae (of 

 which Genetta is a genus) from the Herpestinas, Galidictinse, and 

 some others by the existence in the first-named and the absence 

 in the two latter of the " prescrotal glands." With regard to 

 Galidictis, this assertion is only based upon its likeness to Herpestes 

 &c. ; for Dr. Mivart writes § with respect to that genus : — " I can 

 find no record of the condition of the anus, or of the number of 

 anal glands, neither any note as to prescrotal glands ; I, however, 

 anticipate that the latter are wanting, that thei-e is but a single 

 pair of anal glands, and that the anus opens onto the surface of 

 the body, and not into a pouch." It is perhaps a little remarkable 

 that Dr. Mivart should have postulated the absence of a pouch 

 into which the anus opens in Galidictis, in view of his opinion 

 that the subfamily Galidictinse lies between the Viverrine and' 

 Herpestine groups, " though more nearly allied to the latter than 



* " On the Classification and Distribution of the ^luvoidea," P. Z. S. 1882, 

 p. 135. t P- Z. S. 1882, p. 156, fig. 5. 



I Id. ibid. p. 205. § lb. p. 187. 



