| OCR Text |
Show 1892.] SPECIES OF T H E H Y R A C O I D E A . 51 type specimens of Hemprich and Ehrenberg's species preserved in Berlin. Fifthly, a skin of the same species lent m e by Canon H . B. Tristram of Durham. It will be seen therefore that not only is the present series unpre-cedently large in point of numbers, but that it contains the actual specimens referred to by all the chief writers on the subject of recent years, viz. Gray, Blanford, Lataste, and Bocage. Of their papers I would call special attention to that by M . Lataste, already briefly referred to, on the skulls and dentitions of the different " subgenera," and especially to his theory that the minute anterior maxillary tooth of the milk-dentition is a milk-canine which does not have a successor. This theory I believe to be perfectly correct, and am most glad to be able independently to confirm Lataste's observation. This tooth appears most certainly to be homologous with the milk-canine of other mammals, even though it is ordinarily situated some way behind the maxillo-premaxillary suture. M . Lataste's other work on the group, being in the form of drawings and rough notes, I have found it very difficult to utilize, especially as our opinions are naturally very frequently divergent. If, however, I have published any observation which he has previously discovered and recorded, I must ask his pardon and plead as an excuse the very rough character of the notes which he has made. The excellent paper by Prof. Barboza du Bocage1 should also be referred to, as he has given in it not only full and detailed descriptions of the three Angolan species, in some ways the most interesting, because the most annectant, of the genus, but he has also given a complete list of all the known species, with notes on their characters and localities. This paper has therefore naturally been of much service to m e while going over the same ground. To pass now to the subject-matter of this paper. In the first place, it must be admitted that, as pointed out by Lataste, the time-honoured name of Hyrax2 should be superseded by that ofProcavia3, earlier by three years than Hyrax. The family name will therefore be Procaviidce, but the ordinal or subordinal name will remain Hyracoidea as before, a name of this rank not necessarily being based on that of a constituent genus. " Hyrax " might, however, be adopted as an English vernacular name, the species of Procavia hot having as yet one generally and correctly applicable to them. Secondly, there arises the important question as to whether all th Hyraces should be placed in one genus, or whether " Heterohyrax ' and "Dendrohyrax," both proposed by Gray and admitted by Lataste and others, should be recognized as distinct genera or subgenera. N o w on this point I find it very difficult to come to a definite conclusion. Within the group there are two extremes, typified, for example, by P. abyssinica and P. dorsalis-the former with their 1 J. Sci. Lisb. (2) iii. pp. 186-196 (1889). 2 Herm. Tab. Aff. Anim. p. 115 (1783). 8 Storr, Prodr. Syst. Mamm. p. 39 (1780). 4* |
