350 ME. R. I. POCOCK OX THE 



supply, in conjunction with the external features, in the attempt 

 to discover the probable affinities of the genera with reference to 

 a hypothetical ai-chaic type of Mongoose. For this, the fine 

 series of skulls in the British Mviseum has been indispensable. 



There does not appear to have been any general work on the 

 classification of Mongooses since the publication of Mr. Thomas's 

 and Prof. Mivart's papers in our 'Proceedings' for 1882. The 

 classification proposed by Mr. Thomas, and the genera he pre- 

 served, have been adopted by subsequent authors. It must be 

 remembered, however, that his paper was written before the 

 introduction of the more refined and modern methods of distin- 

 guishing genera. Hence there is no doubt that he would now 

 agree in assigning generic rank to Ichneumia, to Avhich at the 

 time in question he gave subgeneric rank under Herpestes, now 

 known as Mitngos. I am not aware, however, that there has 

 been published in any faunistic lists a proposal, either tacitly or 

 definitely expressed, to restore Atila.v and Ariela to the generic 

 status formerly given them respectively by Cuvier and Gray. 

 On the available material, Mr. Thomas made Atilax a synonym of 

 Herpestes {=2Iu7igos) and Ariela a synonym of Crossarchtts. My 

 reasons for restoring these names to generic rank are given in the 

 sequel. About Atilax there can, I think, be no doubt, assuming 

 the constancy of the features relied upon ; and the only criticism, 

 it seems to me, that can be made against the severance of Ariela 

 from C'rossarchus is the uncertainty, in the absence of fresh 

 material, as to the correct generic allocation of all the forms 

 that in recent years have been described as Crossarchus. This, 

 however, does not deprive of their force the characters by which 

 the type-species of Ariela can be distinguished from that o£ 

 Crossarchus. 



As regards the generic names previously proposed, it must not 

 be forgotten that Gray and Hodgson divided what is now known 

 as Mungos into several genera — e. g., Urva, Tceniogale, Galerella, 

 etc., — the type-species of which were cited by Thomas in 1882. 

 It remains to be seen whether any of these genera will be restored 

 in the future or not*. I have not sufficient material upon which 

 to form an opinion of any value ; but as at present constituted, 

 2Iungos is the only genus of "Viverroid Carnivores common to 

 the Oriental and Ethiopian Regions. 



Two new generic names have been introduced since Thomas's 

 paper, namely, Paracynictis for Cynictis selousi, and Galeriscus 

 based upon G. jacJcsoni, an alleged Musteline from British East 

 Africa, which proves to be a species of Bdeogale t. 



* The small African Mongoose {Mungos gracilis), the t,ype of Galerella Gray, 

 differs in several respects from Mongooses of the M. niungo and M. ichneumon type, 

 notably in its larger ears, less webbed feet, and in the prominence of the anterior 

 chamber of the tympanic bulla. In all these respects it approaches the otherwise 

 verj' distinct genus Cj/nictis. Another small African species, M. pulvernlenttcs, 

 appears to resemble M. gracilis tolerably closely, so far as can be judged from dried 

 material. 



t Ann. Mag. Nat. Hist. (8) svii. pp. 176-179, 1916. 



