OCR Text |
Show PROF. ST.-GEORGE MIVART ON THE vELUROIDEA. [Feb. 7, divergences do not run parallel. Professor Flower himself has remarked1-.-" Too exclusive attention has been paid to the characters of the teeth in defining the family divisions of the order. The difficulty in the taxonomic use of these organs arises from the fact that the teeth of all the members of such a limited and well-defined group as the terrestrial or fissipedal Carnivora are formed on the same general type, but with infinite modifications of this type. And as these modifications are mainly adaptive, and not essentially indicative of affinity, they reappear in various degrees and combinations in many of the great natural divisions of the order. Their teeth alone afford us no satisfactory means of diagnosis between the very distinct groups of the Procyonida and Viverrida. The teeth of Proteles, though demonstrating undeniably its right to a place in the order, are so rudimentary or generalized that they afford no help whatever to determine its special position. Again, the teeth of Gulo are so similar to those of Hyana, that, if this character alone were used, these two otherwise widely differentiated forms would be placed in the closest proximity. Enhydris, among the Mustelidae, and Cynogale, among the Viverridae, might also be cited as examples of strangely modified dentition, with comparatively little corresponding change in other parts." I thoroughly agree with every word here cited ; and, until unexpected evidence as to the anatomy of its soft parts comes to m y knowledge, I must rank Cryptoprocta as merely the type of a subfamily of the Viverrida. As to Proteles, the words just quoted from Professor Flower concerning it confirm the previously cited remark of Mr. Turner 2, that from a " dentition so singularly modified by arrest of development, but little evidence of zoological affinity can be adduced." It differs from the Hyaenas in having a developed pollex ; but such differences occur in the Herpestine section of the Viverrida, yet no one on that account would erect Bdeogale and Suricata into a distinct family, any more than Ateles or Colobus amongst the Anthropoidea. A careful consideration of the characters of Proteles have convinced m e that it should be included within one family along with the Hyaenas; and Professor Flower, in his paper on the anatomy of Proteles, concludes3 by saying that, though still " inclined " to retain it in a distinct family, yet his examination of its soft parts shows its affinities with the Hyaenas " are closer than the examination of the skull alone led" him " to suppose." I would, however, while merging it in the Hyaena family, yet retain it as the type of a distinct subfamily of the Hyanida. If m y views are correct, then the suborder iEluroidea will consist of three families-(1) the Felidce, (2) the Viverrida, and (3) the Hyanida. As to the first of these families, it is evidently impossible to group any of its existing forms in distinct subfamilies. Indeed, in a recent careful study of the Felidce, I have been quite unable to find satisfactory characters whereby to divide that family into more than the two genera Felis and Cyncelurus. 1 P. Z. S. 1869, p. 5. 2 P. Z. S. 1848, p. 82. 3 P. Z. 8, 1869, p. 406. |