LUTEA. 201 



as far as my observations go, and I have examined each genus, a single character by 

 which to separate them generically one from the other, the only difference being, as 

 was to be looked for, that in snch large animals as Lutra braziliensis and L. sand- 

 bachii, the teeth are very much larger than in the skulls of the smaller Otters, sucli 

 as i. vulgaris ; the only exception being that the molar teeth of the small-clawed 

 Otters are proportionally larger than in their compeers with long claws. 



With regard to the cranial characters which Dr. Gray regarded as distinctive 

 of Barangia, it must be remarked that the skull from which he derived them is that 

 of a young animal, and that the httle definition of the orbital processes is entirely 

 a character of youth — a view of the question which is fully borne out by an inspec- 

 tion of the skull of an adiilt animal which I have had the opportunity of examin- 

 ing, as Mr. Moore of the India Museum, London, permitted me to remove the skull from 

 Cantor's specimen, Plate XII, figs. 4 to 6. This skull has the orbital processes quite 

 as well developed as in Lutra vulgaris, from which it does not differ generically. The 

 nasal bones of Otters, as of other allied forms, are subject to considerable variation, 

 and I cannot detect that they materially differ in this species from those of the ordinary 

 Otter, or that the premaxillse are more slender than in Lutra. I do not therefore 

 see any character by which this hairy-nosed species can be separated generically 

 from Lutra, because the singular fact of a hairy nose is not sufiicient of itself 

 to give the animal generic rank, while at the same time it is a good specific 

 character by which the animal can be recognised among Asiatic Otters. 



Dr. Gray in his Catalogue^ describes under the genus Barangia a small Otter 

 skull from Nepal with abraded, superior orbital processes, but regarding which 

 there is no evidence that it belongs to an Otter with a haired nose, because the skull 

 of the hairy- nosed Otter does not differ generically from the skull of Lutra. This 

 form he doubtfully referred to Barangia under the specific term nepalensis. 



The skull of the genus Lontra of Dr. Gray's catalogue^ resembles that of Aonyx 

 in its general form and the proportions of its different parts, but on an enlarged 

 scale. The molars, also, in their relative proportions conform to Aonyx, but the 

 other structural features of the animal do not entitle it to be separated from Lutra. 

 The skull of Lontra brasiliensis. Gray, is so closely allied to a skull that stands in 

 the British Museum as Nutria felina^ that they might be one and the same species, 

 and I fail to detect the characters by which this genus is said to be at once known 

 from the others. The dentition of Nutria is identical with that of Lutra. 



The cranium of the genus Latax, Gray,* is essentially that of Lutra. The con- 

 cavity of the palate ascribed to it is very little more than may not unfrequently 

 be observed in Lutra vulgaris, and the last molar holds the proportion to the penul- 

 timate tooth that exists in Aonyx. 



The skull of the South African Hydrogale is intermediate between that of 

 Lutra and Aonyx, and its distinguishing features are the narrow character of the 

 inter-orbital portion and the absence of the post-orbital frontal process, the lower or 



■ L. c, p. 101. ' L. c, p. 102. ' L- e-, P- 106. * L. c, p. 112. 



B 2 



