1095 
#469 Hyaena i (Hyaena) striata^ (Zimm., 1780, Geog. Gesch., v. 2, 256 [Hyena ^J) 
Leunis, 1883a, Synop. Thierkunde, v. 1, 187. Striped hyaena, hyene ray^e, 
gestreifte Hyane, gestreifte Hyene, Aptar, bagha Lakra, Cherak, Chirak, 
Derko-tud, Dhopre, Dumul-gundu, Harvagh, Hebar-kula, Hondar, Jhirak, 
Kalu-thai-korachi, Kirba, Korna-gundu, Kut-kirba, Lakar-bagh, Lakar- 
bagha, Lakha-bagh, Lidder, Renhra, Taras. Ranges over greater portion of 
Indian peninsula and thence westward through S. W. Asia, including Bokhara 
and Arabia, to Caucasus and North and East Africa. So. hyaena, fide 
Trouess., 1904c, 244; Thomas, 1911, 134. 
Ctenocephalides tl639.— Ext. 
team's. 
['\serraticeps «.] 
Gasterophilus tl572. 
equi ^ ^ of Clark. — Larvae in stom. 
Synosternus <tl634. — Ext. 
somalicus. — Africa. 
Xenopsylla tl636.— Ext. 
brasiliensis. 
Dipylidium t308. — Intest. 
^caninum. — Calcutta Zoo, India. 
Chlamydonema t469cZ. 
malayense. — Nigeria. — Host \ 
Macracanthorhynchus t508. — Intest. 
"fgigas «. 
'\hirudinaceus. 
Rhipicephalus 1875. — Ext. 
"Ipulchellus. 
Arctopsylla <tl626. — Ext. 
hyaenae. — Transcaucasia; Persia. 
[striatus °. — Transcaucasia; Persia.] 
#469 Hyaena ' (Hyaena) vulgaris » Desmarest, 1820, Mamm., Paris, pt. 1, 215, 
renaming of hyaena. Africa; Asia. So. #469 Hyaena (Hyaena) hyaena, 
q. V. 
#470 (68). CANiDAE 40 Gray, 1821, London Med. Repos., v. 15, 301.— Dogs, 
wolves, jackals, foxes. Condyloid and glenoid foramina present. Toes 5 
on front feet (except Lycaon which has 4), 4 on hind feet (except some domes- 
ticated dogs which have 5) . Tympanic bulla large, in contact with paroccipi- 
tal process, without septum. Alisphenoid canal present. Teeth 38 to 44, 
exceptionally to 48, generally 42: i. 3/3, c. 1/1, pm. 4/4, m. (variable) 1 to 
<o There are certain major difficulties involved in the classification of the genera and species of this family 
Among these may be noted the following: 
1. As in many other groups, authors have frequently proposed genera without designation of genotypes. 
This has resulted in later confusion. 
2. The genus Canis has for its type C. familiaris, of Europe, but domesticated dogs the world over are 
classified more or less generally as belonging to this species. Except for the teeth, domesticated dogs vary so 
extensively in characters that if an attempt is made to compare them systematically with the wild species, 
one encounters difficulties. Gray (1868, 494) made a suggestion to meet this situation, namely, he confined 
the genus Canis to the domesticated dogs, recognizing (pp. 508-509) four species (familiaris, ceylanicus, tetra- 
dactyla, and dingo). By this plan Gray avoided considerable difficulty, but despite the practical nature of 
his proposition it has not appealed to authors generally, doubtless because its practical aspect is not sup- 
ported by scientific data as interpreted by specialists in the group. 
3. Generic and subgeneric characters in this family have been based to a considerable extent on details of 
skull structure, and these are not always easily recognized externally. Accordingly, although the specialist 
goes into details in working out his classification, the average zoologist would be less likely to do so in making 
a determination. 
4. Many of the anatomical data used in classification are comparative in nature (as Genus A, with canine 
teeth longer [or broader] than in the Genus B; or some similar expression), rather than a direct presence or 
absence or regional location, of a character . Not only is the mental reaction to characters of this nature rather 
unfavorable among zoologists who are accustomed to dealing with animals of soft tissue (hence subject to 
extreme contraction), but unless specimens of both A and B are present for comparison, the character of 
"longer" or "broader" loses in value. 
As a result of these various factors, the natural tendency is to use the genus Canis in a very broad sense and, 
except for outstanding groups, to reduce to subgeneric status the numerous genera recognized by some au- 
thors. In adopting this conservative plan, we are not only conforming to precedent of very well known 
mammalogists but are at the same time reducing the difficulties for the parasitologists. 
The preferred restricted generic or subgeneric name, in addition to Canis will be placed in heavy type 
under Canis '. 
