SIWALIK AND NARBADA CARNIVORA. 
25—202 
Family II. — URSID2E. 
Extent of family. — In the first part of the “ Enchainements du Monde Animal ” 
Professor Gaudry 1 has shown that in spite of the great distinctions now separating 
the bears and the dogs, — distinctions of such importance as to be ranked of sub- 
ordinal value, — there are the strongest indications that in past times these distinctions 
did not exist, but that there was a complete passage from the one to the other. It 
is true that to a. great extent the evidence for such a passage is afforded solely by 
the characters of the cheek-teeth, but there is also some evidence from other parts 
of the skeleton, and if it be remembered how different are the molar teeth of the 
bear and the dog, it is only reasonable to assume that if fossil forms indicate a 
complete passage in this respect from the one to the other, an analogous transition 
obtained in all other parts of the skeleton. In any case until the evidence of the 
dentition and such other part of the skeleton as is available be contradicted by other 
evidence the only logical course is to accept the former. 
Since the publication of Professor Gaudry’ s work some highly important 
observations have been recorded by Dr. H. Filhol 2 in regard to three fossil Carnivora 
generally known as Hycenarctos hemicyon , Dinocyon thenardi , and Cephalogale geoffroyi , 
which, taken in conjunction with the evidence afforded by specimens described in 
the sequel of the present memoir, shows this relationship still more clearly. In 
regard to those three species, it is concluded that the first does not belong to the 
genus Hycenarctos (from which it is distinguished by the more dog-like form of the 
upper true molars), but is in all probability generically the same as the second, 
which in respect of such part of its dentition as is known agrees very closely with 
the dogs. In his description, led astray by an erroneous determination of Prof. 
Owen in regard to the lower carnassial of Hycenarctos , M. Filhol thought that 
Dinocyon thenardi had no affinity with that genus. It will, however, be shown below 
that the lower carnassials of both genera are constructed on the type of that of the 
dogs ; and that the upper carnassial of the species which may in future be 
provisionally termed Dinocyon hemicyon 3 is constructed on the type of that of 
Hycenarctos. It will also be shown that in respect of the upper true molar teeth 
1 “Mammiferes Tertiaires,” p. 211, et. seq. 
2 “ Notes sur quelques Mammiferes de l’Epoque. Miocene (Observations relatives au Carnassiers signale par Jourdan sous 
le nom de Dinocyon Thenardi),” Lyon, 1881, p. 43, pis. II. -III. (‘ Arch. d. Mus. d’Hist. Nat. d. Lyon.,’ vol. III.). 
3 The genus Eemicyon was founded in 1851 by the late M. Ed. Lartet (“Notice sur la Colline de Sansan,” p. 16), on 
the evidence of the upper molars of a dog-like carnivore from Sansan, considered to be allied to Amphieyon, and named 
H. sansaniemis. Subsequently two other specimens of the upper dentition of a carnivore considered to be probably the same 
as the Eemicyon of Lartet were described and figured by the late Prof. Gervais (“ Zoologie et Paleontologie Framjaises,” 
2nd ed., pi. LXXXI., figs. 8-9) under the name of Eycenarctos hemicyon. As it is pretty certain that these specimens do not 
belong to Eycenarctos , and as there is some doubt whether they are the same as Lartet’s Eemicyon , it seems best to adopt the 
name Dinocyon for the genus to which they belong, although the former name has the priority. There is a slight difference 
between the two specimens figured by Gervais, but this may not be more than individual variation. 
