Classification of Animals 563 



badgers, and gluttons ; the series finally terminating in the bears, 

 which stand at the furthest confines of the series. After shewing 

 that the plantigrade and the digitigrade divisions of M. Cuvier are 

 indefinite and artificial, he proceeds to enumerate the sub-families 

 or five typical forms of which it is composed. The first mentioned 

 is that represented by the genus Ryzatna, an animal in the opinion 

 of many naturalists approaching nearer to the dogs than to any 

 other of this family, except it be the Cynictis of Mr Ogilby, an 

 animal recently brought from South Africa, and which that gentle- 

 man considers as connecting the Viverrinae with the dogs. The gen- 

 nets or Viverrinae, constituting the sub-typical group, contains the 

 genera Crossa re hits, Herpesies, Genelta, Viverra, and probably Para- 

 doxurus. The Mustelinaz or typical group are distinguished by 

 their purely carnivorous habits and thirst for blood. In addition to 

 the genera Mustela, Maries, Mephitis, Mydaus, &c. the otters also 

 belong to it; and he adds, " it will be a question for future investi- 

 gation, whether the Gluttons (Gulo), the Rattels (Ratelus), and 

 the badgers ( MelesJ, form tru; aberrant portion of the ursine circle, 

 or whether they represent the bears, and enter into the circle of 

 the Muslelidat." The ursine or genuine bears follow next, among 

 which he includes the sloth-bears, Prochilvs, 111. and the Bali- 

 saur or Arctonyx cullaris. From these to the racoons the gra- 

 dation is easy and natural. To this latter group belongs the genus 

 Nasita, which shews a decided affinity to the Ttyzcena, indicating 

 that the Mustelinae form a circle within themselves. Before he 

 passes to the next order, he adverts to the considerations which in- 

 duced him to separate the carnivorous from the herbivorous Marsu- 

 pials, and to break up the order Marsupiata of M. Cuvier. " Nearly 

 all our leading naturalists have acknowledged the artificial nature of 

 this assemblage, uniting, as it does, animals of the most opposite 

 natures, and of the most dissimilar organization, merely from the 

 circumstance of their possessing a marsupial pouch. Upon what 

 reasons M. Cuvier, by instituting this order, was induced to violate 

 the very first principles of his own arrangement, which every one 

 sees is mainly founded upon the structure of the teeth — we know 

 not ; but this single circumstance is sufficient to excite the strongest 

 suspicion, that his arrangement is not natural. This at least, was 

 the conclusion at which we arrived, after the most matured investi- 

 gation we could give the subject, and after endeavouring in vain to 

 discover a circular series among the marsupial animals." In this 

 view of the subject, he is supported by the weighty opinion of the 



