small tubercles, and terminating behind like the preceding tooth. The series of teeth in this jaw is terminated by a tuberculous one, which greatly resembles the carnivorous tooth just described.

From this description it is easy to see that the Suricates are less carnivorous than the Mangoustes, and approach more to the omnivorous character, not from the number of the tuberculous, but from the form of the carnivorous, teeth. The mode of action in these teeth confirms this notion. Among animals of prey the carnivorous teeth act one upon the other, like the blades of a pair of scissors, and the lower carnivorous passes completely behind that of the opposite jaw. In proportion as the appetite is less sanguinary, the upper carnivorous tooth advances, and the lower recedes, so that they act but partially on each other. In the Mangoustes the whole anterior part of the lower carnivorous acts against the entire extent of the internal face of the upper. But this same part in the Suricate corresponds to the vacuum left between the opposite teeth, while its posterior part is in opposition with the first tuberculous. Finally, the anterior part of the upper carnivorous is opposed to the posterior part of the last false molar. Thus we see that both the action and the form of these teeth have many relations with those of the insectivora.

The Suricate has a very fine sense of smelling, which neither detracts from the extent of the brain, nor causes that preponderance in the sense of taste, which is usual where the former organ is much developed. Among the Cats, we find that where the brain is extended, the sense of smell is feeble. The anterior extremity of the cerebal cavity advances so as to correspond with the middle of the orbit, and all the parts of the olfactory organ are much limited, and likewise those of that of taste. In Dogs, the brain also advances to the middle of the orbit, but the bones of the nose are elongated, and the parts of the mouth extended

in a similar proportion. With the Suricate, the brain, as in Cats and Dogs, corresponds, anteriorly, with the middle of the orbit, but as the bones of the nose remain very short, the animal's sense of smell would be very feeble, but for the extension of the cartilaginous parts in the same organ. This incontestably favours the exercise of smell, while the power of taste is still limited by the shortness of the aforesaid bones. The nose is terminated by a glandulous organ, in which open the nostrils, formed somewhat like those of Dogs. There is nothing particular in the other organs of sense.

The cerebral cavity is remarkable by its extent, breadth, and rounded form. This, again, distinguishes the Suricate from the Mangoustes, which are characterized by the narrow and cylindrical form of this cavity.

The mammæ are three in number on each side, and the anus is surrounded by a naked skin, which covers a glandulous apparatus, leading by two orifices to the internal edge of the rectum. The limbs are terminated by four toes, armed with long and digging nails. The feet are characterized by certain tubercles, and are covered with a fine skin, like that of the human hand

With these differences of organization, certain differences of habit are found to correspond. The Suricate does not move like the Polecats or Mangoustes, with the head low, the body elongated, and the rapidity of an arrow. Its body is arched, and though it proceeds quickly, it has not that uniformity of motion which makes the others appear to glide rather than run. It places the entire sole on the ground, and can easily stand upright on its hind legs. Sometimes it will carry its provisions to its mouth with its fore-paws. Its sense of smell is its principal guide. It ferrets about, thrusting its mobile nose into every hollow place, and when it finds an object which strikes its sense f smell, it seizes it instantly, and devours it. Sweet fruits

are not disagreeable to it, but it prefers animal matters, milk, eggs, and the flesh of birds. It laps in drinking. It cannot bear light, and sees but in obscurity.

Its sense of hearing must be but feeble, from the small extent and mobility of the auditory conch, and also from the extreme predominance of the sense of smelling over the rest, a result not only of the great development of those parts in which it is situated, but also of the frequent use which the animal makes of it. That of touch resides, like as in other Mammalia, chiefly in the silken hairs in the mustaches, and, probably, in the soft and naked skin, which covers the soles of the feet.

The Suricate, as might be prejudged from the great development of the brain, is easily tamed. It soon acquires a clear notion of the circumstances in which it is placed, and learns to estimate the degree of confidence it should repose in all that surrounds it. Like a Cat, it traverses the house which it inhabits, and will never leave it. It is, in a high degree, susceptible of affection, and also of hatred; though we cannot agree with M. Fred. Cuvier, that one is always a necessary consequence of the other. Cats are less susceptible of affection than Dogs, and more so of hatred. The Suricate recognises those who tend it, is pleased with their caresses, and becomes permanently attached to them; but it preserves rancour against those who have offended it, and will seize the first favourable occasion for vengeance. It will even conceive prepossessions so powerful as not to be removed by the kindest treatment. This species, erroneously attributed by Buffon to America, is found in the south of Africa.

The fur of this animal is a dull brown, inclining to fawn underneath, and crossed by slight transversal bands, principally on the back. On the limbs there is a silvery tint. The skin itself is of a tan colour on the naked parts. The tail is brown. The length of the body from tail to muzzle

is about eleven inches; the tail itself about seven, and the mean height of the animal may be about six and a half.

From the details now given, we may conclude that this animal fills the void between the genuine carnivora and the plantigrades. The teeth are more tuberculous than those of the Mangoustes, and less so than those of the Coatis. The organization of the hind-foot, the number of toes excepted, is the same as that of the Mangoustes, but the sole with the latter is only half uncovered, but in the Suricate it is entirely so, as in the Coati. Like the last-mentioned animal, the muzzle of the Suricate is prolonged considerably beyond the jaws, but its tongue, furnished with horny papillæ in the middle and soft at the sides, approaches it by the first of these characters to the Mangouste, and by the second to the Coati. If the Suricate does not completely fill the void we have mentioned, it requires only some very slight modifications to do so. The discovery of a new genus might so completely unite the two groups, as to leave nothing abrupt between them. In consequence of what we have now detailed, M. F. Cuvier seems to think that the subdivisions of the Plantigrades is not a natural one, and that these animals ought to terminate or commence the series of one of the branches of the genuine Carnivora.

This animal is the Viverra Suricata of Erxleben, the Viverra Tetradactyla of Schreber and Gmelin, the Suricate Viverrin of M. Desmarest, and the Ryzena of Illiger. This last, as a generic name, seems more eligible for adoption than names which time and usage have consecrated to specific designation.

We now come to the last subdivision of the Digitigrades, the first snb-genus of which is the formidable HYENA. Rounded spots, scattered in small number over a fur of a yellowish-dun colour, and the Southern part of Africa as

its habitat, are the only characters which distinguish the Spotted from the Striped Hyæna.

We begin to fear that, from frequent recurrence to the same position, it may be thought we are rather broaching a particular hypothesis than concentrating by compilation to one focus the various labours of others, which, with occasional comments and reflections, and original graphic illustrations, forms in reality the more humble object of our endeavours. Renouncing, therefore, more lofty pretensions, and deprecating the anger of those who may know better and think differently, we again advert to the too great readiness with which some naturalists have established diversity of colour as a ground of diversity of species. There are cases, however, we must allow, in which there is no other obvious criterion of distinction, in the present limited state of our zoological knowledge. Two species may have always remained distinct, though the only point of dissimilarity between them may be a very slight variation in the arrangement of their colours. Yet even here we should be cautious, and hesitate to pronounce any more than a provisional judgment on the subject. Many causes may prevent the intercourse of animals, which, from their not intermixing, we refer to different species. When we see two races of animals inhabiting the same country never intermix, and always preserve the same external differences, we may with confidence pronounce them distinct. But we must always be liable to some error in our judgments concerning animals which inhabit different countries, and whose characteristic differences are slight and external. Even if when we bring them together, they refuse to intermix, it would be no sufficient proof of specific difference, for we know how much the instincts of wild animals are weakened or perverted in the unnatural state of captivity. This is true even of those animals of whose specific identity no doubt can be entertained. Transpose the habitats