106 CARNIVORA. 
M. 1374. The greater portion of the right ramus of the mandible, 
containing all the cheek-teeth except pm.1; from the 
Upper Eocene of Caylux. This specimen is precisely 
similar to the last. Purchased, 1884. — 
Genus non det. (serial position wncertuin). 
Hab. England. 
36791. Portion of the cranium; from the Headon beds (Upper 
Eocene) of Hordwell, Hampshire. This specimen has been 
described by Davies in the Geol. Mag. dec. 3, vol. i. p. 487 
(1884), who was unable to determine its affinities. It 
indicates an animal of considerably larger dimensions than 
Viverra hastingsie (p. 100). It shows a canine and three 
premolars in fair preservation; and one premolar and a 
carnassial, with their crowns broken, are present in their 
respective alveoli. Presented by Samuel Laing, Esq., 1862. 
Family URSIDZ. 
In the ‘ Paleontologia Indica,’ ser. 10, vol. ii. pp. 202-204, the 
present writer has shown that it is impossible to draw any distinc- 
tion of more than generic value between the Canoids and the Ursoids. 
and he accordingly united the two modern families of the Canide 
and Urside, adopting the latter name as the family one’. The same 
arrangement has been adopted in the present work. It may, how- 
ever, be observed that there are almost equally strong reasons for 
uniting the Canoids and Viverroids; but as it is absolutely necessary 
to have a certain number of divisions, the family Viverride is 
maintained. 
Although, as above said, it is logically impossible to draw any 
divisions of family value between the different genera of the Urside 
as thus extended, yet the convenience of having some division for 
working purposes among such a multitude of genera is so great, that 
it will be found advisable to rank the most Bear-like genera under 
one arbitrary group, and the most Dog-like under another. These 
two groups may respectively be termed Ursinew and Canine, and 
their most typical representatives will be the members of the modern 
families Urside and Canidw. The genus Dinocyon will be ranked 
under the first group, on account of at least one of the species 
1 Were it not for the inadvisability of introducing new terms, and the in- 
trinsic objection to the name Hyenarctos, the name Hyenarctide would be in 
many respects more advisable for the family name. 

