1901.] NEW FOSSIL MAMMAL FROM SABDINIA. ()*37 



hJnhydrictis galictoides, gen. et sp. uov. 



At various times I have dealt with the remarkable Pleistocene 

 Mammalia of Corsica and Sardinia, and pointed out their absolute 

 distinctness from those of the Coutiuenfal Pleistocene fauna, as 

 well as the affinities of some of the insular forms with Tertiary 

 European mammals. More recently, Deperet has expressed partly 

 similar views \ 



It was therefore natural to search for related forms with 

 Enhyclrictis amongst the Tertiary Carnivora, with the result that 

 the Middle Miocene Trochictis is the only known Tertiary genus 

 in which the upper carnassial is almost identical with those of 

 Enhydrictis and Galictis. 



The recorded species of TrocJdctis are based on more or less 

 perfect mandibular jaws, and the genus has been classed with the 

 Melinae. An imperfect skull with a mandibular ramus attached, 

 obtained by me in the quarries of La Grive-Saint-Alban, which 

 is now in the British Museum, shows that the upper jaw of 

 this genus has already been described under various names, from 

 Steinheim by O. Fraas {Palmo mephitis jaegeri^, Lutni duhia)^, 

 and from La Grive by Deperet and Gaillard (Mustela filholi 

 Dep.) *. Trochictis has on the whole less affinities with the Melinae 

 than with the Mnstelinse, and amongst the latter especially with 

 Galictis and Enhydrictis ; to judge from the comparatively small 

 infraorbi'al foramen and the largely developed bullae osseas, it was 

 not amphibious. 



Carnivora still more closely related to Enhydrictis may be 

 expected from later Tertiary deposits. Mustela raajori Weith., 

 from the lower Pliocene of Montebamboli (Tuscany) — which, by the 

 way, is not a Mustela — shows some approach to Enhydrictis in the 

 shape of the upper carnassial, the heel of which is not separated 

 by a constriction from the blade, but largely developed ; it is even 

 longer antero-posteriorly than in the latter genus. The tooth of 

 M. niajori is not inserted obliquely in the jaw as in Enhydrictis, 

 but parallel to the palate, apparently in connection with the 

 different insertion and direction of the zygoma. The upper molar 

 (m. 1) of M.majori approaches more that of Mustela ; its transverse 

 diameter being less, its long axis greater than in Enhydrictis ; the 

 postero-internal angle is still more developed than in Mustela, and 

 the transverse diameter shorter even than in the latter. The 

 lower carnassial (m. 1) of M. majori is conspicuous by the small 

 development of the heel, which conversely is very long in Enhy- 

 drictis ; the internal cusp of the median tubercle is larger in the 

 tooth of the latter genus. 



^ Charles Deperet, " Etude de quelques giseiuents noiiveaux de Vertebres 

 pleistocenes de I'ile de Corse," Ann. Soc. Linn. Lyon, xliv. p. Ill (1897). 



- Wiirtt. Nat. Jahresh, xviii. pp. 129, 130, pi. ii. flg. IS (1862). 



' lb. xxvi. pp. 164, 165 (1870). 



* Arch. Mus. Hist. Nat. Lyon, ir. p. 129, pi. xiii. fio-. 55 (1887); v. p. 24. 

 pl. i. figs. 8, 9 (1892). 



