CHARACTERS OF THE rROCYONID^E. 391 



be compared and contrasted, the only character quite in- 

 adequately dealt with being the feet, wherein he would have 

 found considerable corroborative evidence supporting his opinion 

 of the Ursine affinities of Ailuropoda. 



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. Bassariscidae {Bassariscus) ; 

 Fam. 2. Procyonidse (Ailurics, Procyon, JSFasua, Nasuella *, Bas- 

 saricyon, Potos). This grouping involves the conclusion that 

 the affinity between Ailurus and Procyon or Potos is greater 

 than the affinity between Procyon or Potos and Bassariscits, 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 " Cercoleptes [Potos] 

 deviates in its dentition from the more typical members of the 

 group far more than Bassaris [Bassarisciis% 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 Ailuropoda f. Some authors claim that the genus 

 belongs to the Ursidse ; others place it in the Procyonidse. 

 (2) The position of Ailurus^:, 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 Procyonidee 

 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 Felicia;, Canidee, 

 and other compact families of Carnivora. 



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 organs of the Carnivora 

 that have diedin the Gardens of the Zoological Society : and the 



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

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

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



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

 subsequently changed it to Ailuropus because Gray had previously employed the 

 name iEluropoda for a section of the Carnivora comprising the Felidaa, Mustelidje, 

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

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



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



