Classification of Animals. 563 
badgers, and gluttons ; the series finally terminating in the bears, 
which stand at the furthest confines of the series. After shewing 
that the plantigrade and the digitigrade divisions of M. Cuvier are 
indefinite and artificial, he proceeds to enumerate the sub-families 
or five typical forms of which it is composed. The first mentioned 
is that represented by the genus Ryzcena, an animal in the opinion 
of many naturalists approaching nearer to the dogs than to any 
other of this family, except it be the Cynictis of Mr Ogilby, an 
animal recently brought from South Africa, and which that gentle- 
man considers as connecting the Viverrinae with the dogs. The gen- 
nets or Viverrinae, constituting the sub-typical group, contains the 
genera Crossarchus, Herpestes, Genetta, Viverra, and probably Para- 
doxurus. The Mustelines or typical group are distinguished by 
their purely carnivorous habits and thirst for blood. In addition to 
the genera Mustela, Maries, Mephitis, Mydaus, &c. the otters also 
belong to it; and he adds, " it will be a question for future investi- 
gation, whether the Gluttons (Gulo), the Rattels (Ratelus), and 
the badgers ( Meles), form the aberrant portion of the ursine circle, 
or whether they represent the bears, and enter into the circle of 
the Mustelidce." The ursine or genuine bears follow next, among 
which he includes the sloth-bears, Procldlvs, 111. and the Bali- 
saur or Arctonyx collaris. From these to the racoons the gra- 
dation is easy and natural. To this latter group belongs the genus 
Nasua, which shews a decided aifinity to the Hyzcena, indicating 
that the Mustelinae form a circle within themselves. Before he 
passes to the next order, he adverts to the considerations which in- 
duced him to separate the carnivorous from the herbivorous Marsu- 
pials, and to break up the order Marsupiata of M. Cuvier. tf Nearly 
all our leading naturalists have acknowledged the artificial nature of 
this assemblage, uniting, as it does, animals of the most opposite 
natures, and of the most dissimilar organization, merely from the 
circumstance of their possessing a marsupial pouch. Upon what 
reasons M. Cuvier, by instituting this order, was induced to violate 
the very first principles of his own arrangement, which every one 
sees is mainly founded upon the structure of the teeth we know 
not ; but this single circumstance is sufficient to excite the strongest 
suspicion, that his arrangement is not natural. This at least, was 
the conclusion at which we arrived, after the most matured investi- 
gation we could give the subject, and after endeavouring in vain to 
discover a circular series among the marsupial animals." In this 
view of the subject, he is supported by the weighty opinion of the 
