243—66 INDIAN TERTIARY AND POST-TERTIARY VERTEBRATA. 
the carnassial teeth ; and, what is most remarkable, that these variations are precisely 
analogous to those occurring in the arctoid genera TJrsus and Hycenarctos. The 
latter fact must be considered to indicate that progressive development (as in some other 
instances) has taken place in different groups in parallel directions. The following 
formulae show the reduction in the number of the cheek-teeth in the four above, 
mentioned canoid genera, vis. : — Otocyon , pm. |, m. Canis? pm. m. ■§, Cyon, 
pm. f , m. f , Icticyon , pm. m. Turning to the fossil forms it will be found that 
it is quite impossible to arrange the genera under which these are classed in any 
regular taxonomic order, since some of them diverge in the direction of the bears, 
and others in that of the Viverridce. It will, on the whole, be simpler to commence 
with the more generalized forms. 
In Cynodictis , Pomel and Brav., of the Quercy phosphorites, the number of the 
cheek-teeth is pm. f, m. §, and the dentition is essentially microdont and 
meionocreodont : pm. 4 has its inner tubercle very large and placed sub-mesially : in 
in. 1 the inner cusp of the blade is also large and situated somewhat as in Otocyon , so 
that the cusp-line is transverse. Although this genus undoubtedly presents viverrine 
affinities, yet the form of pm. 4 is nearer to that of Cephaloyale , and so is connected 
with the dog-like bears : the relatively large size of the second lobe of the blade of 
m. 1 is a canine rather than a viverrine character ; — the two lobes being sub-equal in 
length in the latter group. The close resemblance of the skeleton of Cynodictis to 
that of Amphicyon has been pointed out by M. Filhol, 2 and Prof. Huxley 3 notices a 
resemblance between the skull of the former and certain existing American Canidce. 
Prof. Cope 4 refers certain N. American fossil Canidce to the genus Galecynus, Owen, but 
from the synonyms quoted, and from the statement that similar forms occur in the 
Quercy phosphorites, it is to be presumed that Galecynus is considered by Prof. Cope 
as equivalent to Cynodictis. Professor Huxley, however, 5 sees no reason to generically 
distinguish the typical (Eningen Galecynus from Canis ; indicating that the former 
genus has no affinity with Cynodictis. 
The genus Cynodon , 6 Aymard, of the lower miocene of Europe, has the same 
dental formula as Cynodictis , and is equally microdont and meionocreodont; the 
tubercle of pm. 4 is, however, less developed, and placed more anteriorly than in the 
latter. In m. 1 the inner cusp of the blade is reduced in size and the talon very 
large ; pm. 1 is very small and approximated to the canine, and the lower premolars 
are simple. In many of the points in which this genus differs from Cynodictis it 
approaches Canis, but the large size of the talon of m . 1 is a viverrine character. 
In the allied genus Amphicy melon? Filhol, in which the number of the cheek- 
teeth is the same as in the preceding, pm. 1 is very small, and all the premolars are 
1 Canis is taken to include Vulpes, Urocyon, Baird, and probably Galecynus ; for palaeontological purposes lycaon may 
also be included with it. 
2 “ Notes sur quelques Mammiferes Fossiles, etc.,” p. 97. 3 op. cit., p. 281. 4 op. cit., p. 180. 
5 op. cit., p. 280. 6 Filhol, “ Mammiferes Fossiles de Eonzon,” pi. IX.^ figs. 40-41., 
7 Ibid, pi. VIII., figs. 25, 29. 
