malar process being developed. In this oharaoterit is distinguished both from Aonyx
and Lutra, but its dentition is essentially that of Lutra. Dr. Gray referred Sydrogale
to that division of the Lutrma which be considered to be distinguished by
surface of the feet being sprinkled with scattered, soft hairs, but f fgl i jM
nature of this character is evident by the fact that m * » "T O " *
and nude-soled section, a semi-adult Otter (No. 45,1 , 8, 367) referred by I y I
L. monticola, Hodgson, has its palms and soles sprinkled with haus as m g g g f l j i '
and this is also the case in a small-clawed Otter from Madras (No 67, M 14, 2).
I t would seem, therefore, that the characters which Dr. Gray selected to separate
JLyArogale do not belong exclusively to it, but occur also
Temminok1 considered the Otter of J a p a n as identical with the European species,
but Dr. Gray went so far in the opposite direction as to regard it as a distinct
«Onus, which he called Lutronectes? The two skulls on which this genus has been
founded are in the British Museum. They are both young skulls, but the orbititi
processes, for their age, are not less developed than in examples of lu tra mlgam
of corresponding age, and I cannot see that the flesh-tooth differs in any essentuti
particular from the flesh-tooth of Lutra. The arrangement of the mtermaxillanes
and the character of the nasals are the same as in the common Otter ; -m short
these Skulls do not yield any characters by which they can be separated genencafly
from Lutra. . , . , , .. •.
The distinctive features of the genus Arnyx which would appear to give
sub-generie rank are the shorter and more globose cranium as compared with Thrf«;
the relatively greater size of the molars;8 and the i n n e r portion of &elast mokr
being the lamest part of the tooth, while in Lutra the outer exceeds the inner half;
the almost general absence of the first upper premolar; and the radnnentexy claws
which are associated with much more feebly developed finger and toe bones, which
are much tapered to a point, while in Lutra these bones are strong and well
developed. The skeleton generally of the Asiatic species is also of a much lighter
build than in Lutra. The modification of its extremities as it penetrates to the
skeleton is quite as important a character genetically considered as the remarkable
flattening oi the phaLges of the hind feet of mhyOris lut™. Unfortunately
B H Possess any information regarding the special habits of Aonyx as con-
L t e d X those of the longer-clawed Otters. The H I
known, was founded hy Lesson' for the reception of the large African Otter Lutra
inmiguis, E. Cuv., which greatly exceeds in size any example of Lutra (Aonyx)
lePtm^ '.G m r was of the opinion that there were two distinct Otters in
one which he referred to L. chmennw, and another, of which he obtained only the iron
part of the upper jaw, with the teeth in c h a n g e f r o m the milk to the permanent series.
. ,o ah or * Also Anahyst&r, Murray, Proci Koyal Phys.
■ Odontcg 1 « t i l »
Zeits. Ges. Naturwissen., 1868, vol. xxxi. p-
I have examined this fragment, and the short truncated palate and the relatively
large molars enabled me, without reference to Swinhoe’s description, to assign it
unhesitatingly to the sub-genus Aonyx. Ur. Gray first referred this animal to his
second section Sydrogale,1 and afterwards in his Catalogue2 to Lutrogale, under
which sub-generic name the fragment stands in the National Collection.
I propose now to indicate briefly the Southern Asiatic species of Otter.
The different species of Southern Asiatic Otters are very imperfectly known,
and great confusion has arisen from the misapplication of the native names.
Marsden in his great work on Sumatra8 figures two Otters from that island.
The first4 is a strongly clawed species, which, judging from the figure, appears to
have had a ha/i/red nose, but there is no allusion in the text to this character. The
tail is proportionally longer than in the common Otter of India, and the animal is
referred to Mustela lutra. The second figure6 represents a smaller animal with â
relatively shorter tail than the previous one, a naked nose, and small claws. The
native term Anji/ng Ayer, “ water dog,” is applied to both of these animals.
Raffles6 also mentions two species of Otter from Sumatra known by the common
appellation of Anjmg Ayer. The larger he distinguished under the name of
Swmng, and the smaller by that of Barang-Barang, or Ambarcmg. The latter,
according to Raffles, appeared to be nearly allied to Lutra lutreola, being almost a
foot and a half in length and of a glossy, brown colour, and white on the mouth
and throat. The feet he described as being covered with hair and the toes as of
unequal length, but he makes no mention of the character of the claws in either
of the species. The pail is stated to be shorter than the body and covered with hair,
thick at the base and tapering to a point. The type of the Svnvmg of Raffles still
exists in the Lidia. Museum, London, but the skin is not in a good state of preservation,
so that the result of a comparison of it with some of the other species is not
very satisfactory. On certain points of structure, however, it is an important
record, for its extremities, which are perfect, prove that it is along-clawed Otter like
L. ncrn, R. Cuvier, from which it does not differ in any of the details of the structure
of its feet, and, like that species, its nose is bald, and the tail holds the same
proportion to the body as in that form, which it also resembles in its colouring.
As no specimens bf the Otter of Sumatra named Barang by Raffles exist either
in the British Museum or in the Lidia Museum as donations from that distinguished
man, his published description is the only guide to the characters of the
animal, but, as already indicated, it is too vague to be satisfactory. The
majority of naturalists, however, have regarded the Barang of Raffles as the small-
clawed Otter figured by Marsden, and, I think, in all likelihood, that this view of
the, question is correct, but Cantor applied the term Barang to an entirely different
animal.
* P. Z. S., 1867, p. 182. 4 L . e., pi. ri. No* 1*
- Cat. Camiv. Mamm. &c. B. M. 1869, p. 105; * L . c. pi. ri. No. 2.
and Proo. Zool. Sòo. 1870, pp. 624 & 625. 6 Trans. Linn. Soc. Lond. 1822, vol. riii. p. 254.
3 Hist, o f Sumatra, 3rd ed. 1811.