Full text |
INTRODUCTION
as pertain solely to individuals, or if they do not graduate through a series of examples to the style exhibited by
the types of the species. ‘The skulls, as I have shown (and this fact is patent to every mammalogist), vary even
of the same species to a great degree; and light diferences in erania, therefore, cannot safely
aceepted as indicating distinct forms, any more than a varition in the colour or shape of the spot,
of the markings taken by themselves ean, properly, be considered sullicent to constitute a species.
Thickness or length of the fur is another unreliable character, as i proved by ‘Tigers and Leopards from
snd warm countries being s0 diférently clothed, and yet belonging to the same species respectively ; and. therefor
it is to be expected that other species of the Family from different latitudes will vary from each other in a sin
degree. Length of tail is another character only to be accepted with the greatest caution ; for it is known that th
caudal vertebre are not equal in number among individuals of even the same species. Variations in all the points
mentioned ahore are to be expected among the Cats, and sometimes they occur £0 an extraordinary degree—witnes
the examples of F. pardatt, Linn., called F. melanura ; and therefore such forms are to siete,
and not he announced as newly discovered species. The confusion that existed in the synonymy of may
was oceasioned solely, as I believe, by different leing aware of the great amount of vara
the members of this Family ; and, inde
js an unreliable charac Ihave almost alvvays found, among the species o
sunallspotted Cats, that there would be individuals having large spots, sometimes inclined to take the form of rin
with light eentres; but with the addition of other specimens, these would prove to be only individual variations
Among the Cats a peculiarity of colo d markings and of general form is only of specific value when it
orroborated by the skull also showing conspicuous differences from those of other known species; and when these
characters are sustained by several individuals, then it ean be decided with some approach to certainty that a new
species has heen discovered. But to accept any one of these charters by itself as suficient, is more likely to lead
to error than to increase our knowledge of the family. A systematic arrangement of the species of Felidae eannot
re made; but T have endeavoured to group together those that presented a similar style of coloration and a general
mode of life, as well as a resemblance in the formation of their skulls: I commence with F. ko and its. repre
sentative in the New World, F. concolor; then F. tigre, which stands alone. Following this are the great Cats
With largespotted coats, F uacia, F, oned, and F. pardus; then the marbled Cats, F. diardi and F. marmorata
After these I put three species which seem to form a little group of themselves, manu, P. pageos
B. colo en come the unspotted species, F. juguarondi, F. badia, F. egra, F. planicepe, and F. tenminchi. "The
striped species are nest, vie. F. pardalie and F. tigrina, to be followed by the black-spotted species F. goaphoyi
FR, bengalenss, F. cicerrina, F. tris, F. seripte, F. chrysetiriz, and P. vereal. After theac are the red-spotiod Cats,
F. euplilura, F. jacenss, and P. rubiginon, B. catus and F, cafra seem to come naturally here; and after them I
place F. ornata as apparently nearest related to F. chavs, which follows it, to be succeeded by F. caudate and
F. shawiana, leading to the lyaxes, which are six in number—F. cereari, F. canadensis, F. pardina, F. lyas, F. rift
and F. caracal. P. dometion closes the list of the gens Felis. Concluding the enumeration of the Family 1 place
GENERA
The species of Felide have been separated at various times by different authors into many
which included several species, others only one. Some of the distinctive characters of thes
ner deseribers, are:—a round or vertical pupil, with the orbit completely oF incompletely closed. be!
oF absence of a first upper premolar; the separation of the nasals from the masille by d
of the intermaxille and frontal hones, as in Crtolynr, Gray. ‘This character is seen even more pronoinced
Iynxes, as well, though not to so great a degree in F. marmorata. One species has been by. son
generic rank because the fir upper premolar is doublerooted and greatly developed. With the excep
Cheetah, or Hunting-Leopard, I have not adopted any of the genera proposed by later writers, but have
retained all the forms in one genus, that of Felit; for it scemed that the characters, some.of which have bee
enumerated above, were not of sufficient consequence to denote so important a division as that implied by the term
generic. Some of the large Cats, such as the Lion, Ounce, Jaguar, Puma, Leopard, &e., may be conside
INTRODUCTION
posse und pupils in almost every condition in which the animal ma
Inajority of the species depends so much upon the quality and quantity of diferent lights and other causes, this
he skull ali, even in animals closely allid—indeed, it may bo «ai, of
wath, even these may not always be depended on, as Mivart states
of those tee
may well
premolar is very large and projets downwards equally with the sec
greatly that no reliance ean be placed upon it for exhibiting. generic nd as regards. the
The Cat’ p. 898) that he examined « skull
pst existence. The Cheetah, however, possesses several prominent and distinctive characters which
claws are very imperfectly retractile, the skull is very
with short nasal; the first upper premolar is sometimes present, sometimes not, while the sec
oral, and the inner cusp of the upper
Pectoral is rudimentary. ‘The limbs and tail are also long, the former rather slende
The following are the principal genera which have been proposed for these animals
1766.-—Felia, Linn. Syst, Nat. p- 60
1880. —Cynailuras, Wagner, Natit. Syst. Amphib. p. 30
1612.—Tigris, J. B. Gray, List of Spec. Mamm Brit. Mfus. p. 40
1812.—Coracal, 7 p46
1812.—Cymafilis, Less. Nou. Tab. Reg. Anim. p. 49)
1843. —Gueparda, J. B. Gray, List of Spec. Mam. Brit, Mus.
1843. —Chaus, J. EB. Gray, List of Spec. Mamm. Brit. Mus. p. 45
1854.—Une Gray, Ann, & Mag. Nat, Hist, vol. xiv. p. 804
1855.—dilurine, Gerv, Hist, Nat. Mamm. vol fi. p. 87
1858.—Pantlera, Severtzov, Rev. et Mag. Zool. p. 385
1867 —Leopardus, J. B, Gray, Proo. Z
1867.—Pardatina,
1867.—Fiverriceps
1867 —Catolyr
1867 —Leo,
1860.—Panthera, Fitzin, Sitgs. Akad, Wiss. Wien, p. 457
1869.—Galepars, Fitzin. Sitzgs. Akad. Wiss Wien, p. G44
1869.—iluragle p. 249
1874.—Sereal, J. B. Gray, Ann. & Mag. Net. Hist
1874.—Pyroftie,
1874.— Pana,
Type F. jubate, Es
Type F. tris, Linn,
Type F. enweal, Gi
Type F. jubata, Es
“Type F. jubat, Era
Type F. chan, Gil
Type F. uncia, Brsl
Type F. planiceps, Vig. & Mors
Type F. concolor, Lin,
Type F. paris, Linn
‘Type F. geefroyi, D'Or.
Type F. feagatenn, Derm,
‘Type F. marmorata, Martin
Type F. to, Linn.
‘Type F. perdu, Linn
Type F. viverrina, Benn,
Type F. planiceps, Vig. & Hor
Type F. seret, Eral
Type F. temminekii, Vig. & Hors
Type F. concolor, Linn
Besides these, many terms have been proposed as subgeneric for a large proportion of the species; but it docs
not seem necessary to notice them any further ere, as they will be
various artiles in the body of the work
found in the synonymy at the head of the |