OCR Text |
Show 1882.] PROF. ST.-GEORGE MIVART ON THE JELUROIDEA. 139 the Carnivora, or be added, as rather aberrant members, to the iEluroid section. On the whole," he adds, " I a m inclined to the latter arrangement," especially from the support given to it by the genus Proteles. A s to the characters of that genus, he observes •:-" In the first place they are thoroughly iEluroid, but they do not exactly the agree with either of the families of that group as hitherto defined. O n the whole they approach nearest to the Herpestine section of the Viverrida, but deviate from this, and approximate to the Hyanidce, in two points. ... If Cuvier had called Proteles a Hyaenoid Ichneumon instead of a Hyaenoid Genette, exception could scarcely have been taken to the description." The object of the present paper is to carry further the examination of the affinities and interrelationships of the genera constituting Professor Flower's iEluroidea, and especially to discover what divisions below the rank of families can be most conveniently and naturally established in it. In order to effect this, I have, to the best of m y ability, studied the animals living in our gardens, preparations preserved in the Museum of the Royal College of Surgeons, and the skins, spirit-specimens, and osteological treasures of the British Museum, and I have dissected such individuals as good fortune has thrown in m y way. I have especially wished to note the cranial characters of such genera as are not referred to in tbe three papers already noticed, namely the genera Fossa, Prionodon, Poiana, Hemigalea, Arctogale, Galidia, Galidictis, Bdeogale, Helogale, Cynictis, Rhinogale, Crossarchus, and Eupleres. I have endeavoured also to ascertain and enumerate such papers and illustrations as may be most useful for reference or m a y have some historical interest. It will, I think, be most convenient if I state at once the conclusions I have arrived at as to classification, and afterwards notice, seriatim, the several genera, giving separately the characters and references which refer to each. In the first place I a m profoundly convinced that the great group I E L U R O I D E A is a natural one, and that the Hyaenas must, without any question whatever, be included within it. The only doubt is as to their claim to rank as a distinct family, so closely connected do they seem to m e to be with the Herpestine group of Viverridce. Anyhow I a m unable to divide the suborder into so many primary groups as those of Professor Flower. I have examined with as much care as I could the skeleton of Cryptoprocta, and considered the evidence recorded as to its soft parts, and have come to the conclusion that it is distinctly Viverrine, and not at all unquestionably intermediate, as I at first supposed, between Viverra and Felis. Its dentition is of course almost feline; but the more I study comparative anatomy, the more impressed I am with the little value of dental characters as evidences of affinity, save as regards allied species or genera. Nandinia, Arctictis, and Cynogale m a y be cited as evidence of divergences in dental characters from the more normal Viverrine type, to which other structural i Loc. cit. p. 29. |