VIVERRID 4. 105 
side, as is generally the case in existing species, and that 
the anterior border of the coronoid process inclines back- 
ward to a considerably greater extent, thus indicating a 
form of jaw of inferior biting-power. The lower jaw of 
the existing African H. gracilis is also of nearly the same 
size as the fossil, but, in addition to the points distinguishing 
the jaw of H. nipalensis from the latter, differs in the very 
general absence of pm. 1 and the considerably smaller size 
of that tooth when present. It does not appear that any 
other of the living species (most of which are of consider- 
ably larger size) comes so near to the fossil as H. nipa- 
lensis. Although the lower teeth of Genetta are very like 
those of Herpestes*, yet the inner cusp of the carnassial is 
usually less strongly developed in the former, and in this 
respect the fossil differs from the smaller Genets, although 
the form of the hinder part of the jaw is more like that of 
Genetta. The extremely close resemblance of the denti- 
tion of the fossil to H. nipalensis renders it extremely 
probable that it should be referred to the same genus 
rather than to Viverra. 
All the sufficiently described fossil species of the genus 
are of considerably larger size than the present specimen ; 
and this is especially the case with H. crassus, Filhol’, and 
the so-called H. antiquus*, Pomel, which appears to be the 
same as Viverra antiqua, Blainv. 
It may be added that the present specimen is distin- 
guished from Mustela gracilis* by the absence of any 
interval between the anterior premolars, by the larger size 
of pm. 1, of the inner cusp of m. 1 (which is only rudimen- 
tary in that form), and of m.2. It is distinguished from 
Cynodietis exilis*, which is of nearly the same size, by the 
absence of m. 3, and by the larger and lower crown of the 
carnassial, which does not exceed the height of the pre- 
molars®. daha Purchased, 1884. 
1 Vide Mivart, Proc. Zool. Soe. 1882, p. 177. 
2 Arch. Mus. Lyon, vol. iii. p. 63, pl. iv. figs. 10, 11. 
° Vide Filhol, Ann. Sci. Géol. vol. x. art. 3, pp. 161-163, pl. xxiv. figs. 5-9 
(wrongly named #. priscus in letterpress, vide Arch. Mus. Lyon, Joc. cit.). 
* Vide Filbol, Ann. Sci. Géol. vol. viii. art. 1, p. 45, Plesiogale. 
® Ibid. vol. vii. art. 7, pl. xxiv. figs. 97-101 (misnamed Cynodictis gracilis in 
the description of the plates; the real mandible of the latter is represented in 
vol. viii. pl. xx. fig. 337). 
° The present specimen has been already referred to Herpestes by the present 
writer in the Geol. Mag. dec. 3, vol. i. p. 442 (1884). 
