TUPAIIDiE. 109 



description of tlie skull is to be found in Mivart's^ valuable dissertation on the 

 Osteology of the Insectivora, in which he indicates the affinites of this remarkable 

 group, taking the genus as the type of a natural family ^' Tupaiidce,^^ to which 

 he also refers Ftilocereus and Sylomys, and in this arrangement he agrees with 

 Professor Peters.^ The most recent writer on this group is Dr. L. J. Eitzinger,^ who 

 does not appear to have been aware of Professor Mivart's and Dr. Peters' researches, 

 as he makes no mention of either of these naturalists' observations. He regards 

 it as nearly allied to Macroscelides, but on a very imperfect consideration of the 

 structural characters of those two well-marked types. Dr. Pitzinger states that 

 the Tupaice are more nearly affined to the foregoing group than to the Sorices — 

 a comparison which would scarcely have been made by one having a practical 

 acquaintance with the subject. He designates a family Cladobatce and refers to it 

 Ftilocereus and Sylomys. He makes the observation that the front incisors of 

 aged TupaicB fall out; but in the majority of animals there is a tendency for the 

 jaws to become edentulous when the animal is aged. He also states that Hylomys 

 has four molars, and that the tibia and fibula are distinct. In Kylomys, however, 

 these bones are united as in Brinaceus and in Gymnura, to which, by dentition and 

 skull characters, it seems to be more affined. 



Dr. Gray, writing in 1848,* separated the Bornean Insectivorous Mammal Sylo- 

 gale murina, Miiller and Schlegel,^ from the genus Tupaia, and it appears to me 

 that he did so on valid grounds, as the two forms are clearly distinct, the former 

 having apparently a closer affinity to Ftilocereus than to the latter. He created the 

 genus JDendrogale for its reception, but since then he has described another species 

 from Camboja under the name of Tupaia frenata, Gray. There is an example 

 of the skull of this species in the British Museum, but nothing is known regarding 

 the condition of the tibia and fibula. These two species, which are perfectly distinct 

 from each other, are distinguished from all Twpai(B by their round, short-haired, and 

 tufted tails, which, in these characters, are like Ftilocereus^ with which they also 

 agree in the absence of a shoulder stripe. Unlike any known Tupaia^ the two species 

 of Dendrogale resemble Ftilocereus in having a dark band from the snout through 

 the eyes. 



The dentition is much the same as in Tupaia^ but the cingulum of the second 

 incisor forms a kind of posterior talon. The skull is intermediate in form between 

 that of Ftilocereus and Tupaia. The orbit is perfect ; and in the zygomatic arch the 

 large imperfection of ossification which occurs in Tupaia is very much reduced in 

 capacity. The skull in the British Museum is unfortunately imperfect, so that the 

 basicranial characters cannot be determined, but the palate has two imperfections of 

 ossification. 



The skull of D.frenata, Gray, would seem to indicate that this species attained 

 a greater size than the Bornean D. murina, M. and S., because, although the perma- 



^ L.c. 4 pj,og_ 2ool. Soc. Lond. 1848, p. 23. 



2 Abhandl. Akad. Wiss. Berl. 1864. 5 Verhandl., I, p. 167, tab. 26, fig. 5, et tab. 27. 



» Sitzgsber. Akad. Wien, vol. k. (1870), p. 263. figs. 17 & 18 



