1836.] from the Sub -Himalayas. 581 



belonged to a smaller animal than that which owned the cranium : it 

 presents no difference worthy of note, from the lower jaw of the wild 

 cat. The humerus, tibia, and metatarsal bones, forming part of this 

 interesting little group, appear to have belonged to the same indivi- 

 dual as the lower jaw, and it is curious enough that their present 

 bond of connection is the plate of a small crocodile. The carpal, meta- 

 carpal and phalangal bones represented in fig. 3, obtained from the 

 same locality, though at different times, may possibly be assigned to 

 the same or a similar animal. 



Gulo. 



Of this genus we possess the fossil skulls of two individuals, one of 

 which, represented in fig. 4, is nearly perfect : the lower jaws have been 

 separated at their symphysis and otherwise somewhat mutilated, but 

 as they were not found attached to the cranium, we may consider 

 ourselves fortunate in having obtained them at all. The second cranium, 

 fig. 7, has suffered considerable mutilation, and is without the lower 

 jaws : we have, however, inserted it in the plate, because though other- 

 wise less perfect, it has escaped a crush, which appears to have flat- 

 tened fig. 4. Some differences of proportion between the two fossils 

 would be accounted for under this supposition. 



The recent skulls with which we have compared the above men- 

 tioned fossils belong to an animal known by the Hindustani name 

 Biju »st^ identical, or nearly so, with the Cape Ratel, {Gulo Capensis, 

 Desm.) 



In classing the Biju and Ratel under genus Gulo, we follow the 

 common system of arrangement ; though, as remarked by Cuvier*, 

 both the number and character of their teeth would rather place 

 them with the Mustela Putorius. They appear, in fact, to be indebted 

 to their plantigrade motion alone for a place among the Gluttons. The 

 fossils now under consideration correspond in dentition with the Ratel 

 and Biju, and the following table will shew that their resemblance to 

 the latter in most other respects is very strong. 



* II convient d'autaut mieux de comparer le Ratel au Glouton, que ces deux 

 quadrupedes sont a peu pres de meme taille ; mais outre que le Gloutou a six 

 molaires de plus que le Ratel, le crane de celui-ci est plus large en arriere, sou 

 front moins £lev£, son orbite moins cerne, ses arcades zygoraatiques moins 

 hautes, et l'apophyse corono'i'de de sa machoire inf&rieure beaucoup moins haute, 

 plus large, et plus obtuse. Les rapports clu Ratel avec le putois, d'apres ses dents 

 et sa te'te, sont certainement plus importans que les differences de uiarche. Osse, 

 mens fossiles. — Tom. IV. Chap. VI. 



