CHARACTERS OF THE PROCYONIDjE. 



417 



subsequently abandoned by the latter and by most recent 

 authors. 



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

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

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

 representative of a special subfamily of Procyonidge, namely 

 Potosiime. 



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

 Taking first the older known forms, Procyooi, Nasua, and Bassa- 

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

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

 by making Nasua and Procyon the types of special subfamilies of 

 Procyonidae, Gill expressed his idea of closer kinship between 

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

 in a family apart. Even quite recently Hollister has adopted the 

 view that Bassariscus should rank as a separate family. 



The discovery of Bassaricyon, 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, differ in a large number of characters, 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 

 rank 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 forms as Euprocyon, 

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

 Procyoninae, the JSTasuinse, and the Bassariscinse with two genera 

 each and the Bassaricyoninse with one. 



The Position of 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. Milne Edwards con- 

 tented himself with pointing out the resemblances between 

 Ailuropoda and Ailurus on the one hand, and Ailuropoda and 

 the Ursidaa on the other. And, so far as I am aware, Mivart was 

 the first author definitely to state the opinion that Ailuropoda is 

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

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

 practical expression in the ascription of Ailuropoda to the 

 Procyonida?, under a special subfamily also including Ailurus. 

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

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

 was independently reached. Finally, Bardenfieth attempted to 

 show that Flower was right in classifying Ailuropoda in the 

 Ursula?. 



