32 INDIAN TERTIARY AND POST-TERTIARY VERTEBRATA. 
that the Karnul civet is allied to this species, although the distinctness of the other 
Karnul mammals from those of the Siwaliks renders it unlikely that it is specifically 
the same. Compared with Ictitherium the fossil agrees nearly in size with /. robustum, 1 
and approaches it in the depth of jaw and elongation of the premolars, but differs 
by the blade of the carnassial being longer in proportion to the talon. Since the 
two Siwalik species decidedly belong to Viverra? and not to Ictitherium, it appears 
most probable that the Karnul form should likewise be referred to the existing genus. 
The Karnul mandible indicates, however, that the three extinct Indian species (like 
V. pepraxti, Dep^ret, 3 of the lower pliocene of France) were probably intermediate 
between V. zibetha and I. robustum ; and it is also probable that the origin of the 
existing specialized Indian species may be traced directly through V. karnuliensis to 
the Siwalik V. bakeril The apparent occurrence of Viverra 6 in the upper eocene 
(oligocene) of England indicates that the genus is an old one, and Ictitherium must 
probably, therefore, be regarded as an offshoot from one of the later species which 
has assumed characters almost precisely intermediate between the less specialized 
species of Viverra and Hycena. 
Prionodon (?), sp. 
Humerus. — The imperfect left humerus of a small carnivore represented in pi. 
VII. fig. 12 was obtained from bed Cb in the Cathedral, and may probably be 
referred to the Viverridce. It indicates a species agreeing approximately in size with 
Herpestes griseus (fig. 9), but differs from the humerus of that genus by the absence 
of the supracondylar perforation and the smaller lateral expansion of the entepi- 
condyle (en.c.). 6 It agrees in these points with Prionodon, and its resemblance to the 
corresponding bone of the Nipalese P. pardicolor is so close as to indicate the pro- 
bability of its belonging to the same genus, although it is of considerably larger 
size than the corresponding bone of that species, and would probably, therefore, 
agree more nearly with P. maculosus of Darjiling, Tenasserim, etc. The African 
genus Poiana is, however, very closely allied to Prionodon , 7 and since the writer is 
not aware that the limb-bones of the two can be distinguished, the reference of the 
present specimen to Prionodon must be regarded as purely provisional ; to whatever 
genus it really belongs the specimen is important as indicating a form apparently 
different from any now found in Madras. 
Herpestes griseus (Desmarest). 
Skull . — The slightly imperfect cranium and left mandibular ramus represented 
in pi. VII. figs. 7, 8 were obtained, in association with a considerable portion of the 
1 See Gaudry, “ Animaux Fossiles et Geologie de I’Attique,” pi. VII. 
2 This is shown by the shorter pm. 3 and larger m 1 and m. 2 . 
3 Theses. Facult. Sci. Paris, ser. A. No. 67. (Bassin Tertiaire du Rousillon) p. 137. pi. IV. figs. 1-6 (1886). 
4 Supra, vol. II. p. 271. 5 V. hastingsiee, Davies. See Lyd. “Cat. Foss. Mamm. Brit. Mus.” pt. I. p. 101. figs. 11-12. 
6 The humerus of Paradoxurus is distinguished by its wide distal expansion. In Mustela the humerus has no supracon- 
dylar perforation, but in M. flavigula, that bone is much larger and its distal extremity relatively wider than the present 
specimen, while in the smaller species of that genus the whole bone is considerably smaller. 
7 See Mivart, ‘Proc. Zool. Soc.’ 1882. p. 159. 
