NOTES ON THE CANTON OF THE WHITE RIVER OLI.GOCENE. 403 



" Les belles recherches de M. Filhol nous out revele la richesse en especes de ces 

 genres si curieux, places aux confins de plusieurs families de Carnassiers. Les Cynodic- 

 tis et les Cephalogale avaient la formule dentaire des Chiens actuels, mais leurs dents 

 presentaient un aspect particulier qui a valu a ces animaux fossiles le nam de Chiens 

 viverriens. Or en etudiant les pieces originales de la collection du Museum et les livres 

 de M. Filhol sur les Phosporites du Quercy, j'ai ete frappe de retrouver, comme parsemes 

 dans di verses especes de Cynodictis beaucoup des characteres presentes par le Canis mega- 

 mastoides " (p. 328). 



" II semble done que les Renards actuels representent une branche emanee du buis- 

 son touffer des Cynodictis, duquel se serait egalement detach.ee la branche des Viverrides. 

 Je suppose que lorsqu' on connaitra suflisament les membres des diverses especes de Cyno- 

 dictis, on trouvera des formes de passage allant d'un cote aux membres des Viverrides et 

 d'un autre cote aux membres des Renards. 



" Si ces considerations sont exactes, les Chiens out une origine differente des Renards. 

 Les Amphicyons representent les ancetres communs des Ours et des Chiens, comme les 

 Cynodictis representent les ancetres communs des Civettes et des Renards " (p. 329). 



M. Boule's argument as to the derivation of the foxes from Cynodictis is not a very 

 convincing one and is open to several obvious objections. In the first place, M. Boule does 

 not define the sense" in which he uses the term fox; it is evidently not the same as Hux- 

 ley's alopecoid, for C. cancrivorus and C azarce are called foxes, while Huxley regarded 

 them as typical though primitive thooids. M. Boule does not say whether C. megamas- 

 toides possessed a frontal sinus, but from the statement that " le frontal est saillant, a sur- 

 face arrondie" (pp. 324, 325), one would infer the presence of a sinus, and if so, C. mega- 

 mastoides is not an alopecoid, but a thooid. The presence or absence of frontal sinuses 

 and the shape of the cerebral fossa are the only diagnostic characters which Huxley could 

 find definitely distinguishing the two canine series from each other. In the second place, 

 the resemblances in tooth structure between Cynodictis and Can is meyamastoides, upon 

 which M. Boule places such emphasis, are in themselves of no great value, because the 

 resemblance of the latter species to Cephalogale is even greater, and Cephalogale, as 

 Schlosser has shown, probably belongs in a totally different line, which has no existing 

 representatives. In any event, the gap between the Pliocene and Oligocene forms is 

 still so wide that no determination of the taxonomic value of their resemblances and 

 differences can yet be made. 



Again, it is highly improbable that the viverrines can be descended from Cynodictis, 

 for the latter, though having certain marked resemblances to the civets, is in all essen- 

 tials of structure distinctly a member of the Canidce, and is no more ancient than cer- 

 tain unmistakable viverrines. Indeed, the genus Viverra itself is reported from the 



