of the genus, so early as 1820, designated them under the generic name Tupaia, a
term derived from the Malay word Tupai, which is applied generally by the
people to “ various small animals which have the external form and the agility of
the squirrel.”1 This term was strongly objected to by E. Cuvier on the ground of
its origin from the language of a semi-civilised people, and he proposed the name
Cladobates instead. I do not, however, see any very grave objection to the term
Tupaia, more especially as it was used by Raffles in no ambiguous sense, hut
was accompanied by a definition of the genus. Temminck also protested against
the adoption of the term Tupaia, which was doubtless an unfortunate one, and
proposed Hylogale in the interests of science, and under the belief that it would
he accepted.
In consequence of the rejection of the first generic term applied by the naturalist
who first defined the group, and had a fair knowledge for his time of its affinities,
we have this small group of a n im a ls now overburdened by those generic terms,
Tupaia, G-lisosorex, Cladobates, and Hylogale; one body of naturalists accepting
Cladobates, and the English naturalists adhering to the name first applied to it by
one of their own countrymen. I t is much to be deplored that some common principle
as to the acceptance or rejection of terms, generic and specific, has not been laid
down for the guidance of naturalists; but I hold that if a classical origin is to be
insisted on, those naturalists who reject Tupaia on the ground of its being derived
from a savage tongue, should be consistent, and refuse their sanction to all specific
names having a similar origin. They accept, however, tana, a Malay word, and
reject Tupaia, a term derived from the same language.
The term Tupaia has been adopted by Horsfield,2 Is. Geoff. St. Hilaire»*
Desmarest,4 Eischer,6 Gray,6 Waterhouse,7 Reichenbach,8 Cantor,® Blyth,10 Jerdon,11
and Mivart ;“ whilst Cladobates, the rival term, has been used by Wagner,13 Giebel,14
Zelebor,15 and Eitzinger.16 I shall add one more to the first list of names by using
the original generic term Tupaia.
The most important contributors to the history of this group are Horsfield,
S. Muller and Schlegel, and Wagner, but their descriptions chiefly related to accounts
of the species. The first-mentioned author gave figures of the teeth, head, and
limbs; and Muller and Schlegel figured the skulls of the species they described.
The skeleton, skull, and dentition of Tupaia, however, had been figured by Blainville,17
and the dentition by Cuvier,18 and, more recently, by Owen.19 The most exhaustive
1 jr c. 10 Cat. Mamm. As. Soo. Mua. 1863, p. 81.
2 A c> 11 Mammals of India, 1867, p. 64.
s Bélanger Voy. aux Indes, Vol. I, 1834, p. 12 Mivart, Joum. Anat. and Phys. 1867, Vol. I, p. 292 ; Ibid,
103. 1868, Vol. H , p. 145.
* Z .c . 13 Schieb. Saugetb. Snppl., vol. v.
5 Syn. Mamm. 14 Odontographie, p. 18.
6 proc. Zool. Soc. Lond. 1848, p. 23, and Br. 15 Sâugeth. Freg. Novara.
Museum Cat., p. 76. 16 Sitzungsb. der k. Akad. Wien. Vol. LX, 1870.
» Waterhouse, Ann. Nat. Hist. Sec. Ser. VI, 17 Osteographie (Insectiv.) pis. iii, vi, and s.
1850, p. 135. 18 Dents des Mammif. No. xvii.
8 Beichenbach Natur. 1834-36. 19 Odontography, pi. cxi, fig. 3.
9 Joum. As. Soo., Vol. XV, p. 188.
description of the skull is to be found in Mivart’s1 valuable dissertation on the
Osteology of the Insectivora, in which he indicates the affinités of this remarkable
group, taking the genus as the type of a natural family “ Tupaiidce,” to which
he also refers JPtilocerem and Hylomys, and in this arrangement he agrees with
Professor Peters.2 The most recent writer on this group is Hr. L. J. Eitzinger,8 who
does not appear to have been aware of Professor Mivart’s and Hr. Peters’ researches,
as he makes no mention of either of these naturalists’ observations. He regards
it as nearly allied to Mdcroseelides, but on a very imperfect consideration of the
structural characters of those two well-marked types. Hr. Eitzinger states that
the Tupaice are more nearly affined to the foregoing group than to the Sorices—
a comparison which would scarcely have been made by one having a practical
acquaintance with the subject. He designates a family Cladobates and refers to it
jPtilocercus and Hylomys. He makes the observation that the front incisors of
aged Tupaice fall out ; but in the majority of animals there is a tendency for the
jaws to become edentulous when the animal is aged. He also states that Hylomys
has four molars, and that the tibia and fibula are distinct. In Hylomys, however,
these bones are united as in Hrinaceus and in Gym/n/ura, to which, by dentition and
skull characters, it seems to be more affined.
Hr. Gray, writing in 1848,4 separated the Bornean Insectivorous Mammal Hylogale
mu/rima, Müller and Schlegel,6 from the genus Tupaia, and it appears to me
that he did so on valid grounds, as the two forms are clearly distinct, the former
having apparently a closer affinity to jPtilocercus than to the latter. He created the
genus JDendrogale for its reception, but since then he has described another species
from Camboja under the name of Tupaia frenata, Gray. There is an example
of the skull of this species in the British Museum, but nothing is known regarding
the condition of the tibia and fibula. These two species, which are perfectly distinct
from each other, are distinguished from all Tupaice by their round, short-haired, and
tufted tails, which, in these characters, are like Ptilocercus, with which they also
agree in the absence of a shoulder stripe. TJnlike any known Tupaia, the two species
of Dendrogale resemble Ptilocercus in having a dark band from the snout through
the eyes.
The dentition is much the same as in Tupaia, but the cingulum of thé second
incisor forms a kind of posterior talon. The skull is intermediate in form between
that of Ptilocercus and Tupaia. The orbit is perfect ; and in the zygomatic arch the
large imperfection of ossification which occurs in Tupaia is very much reduced in
capacity. The skull in the British Museum is unfortunately imperfect, so that the
basicranial characters cannot be determined, but the palate has two imperfections of
ossification.
The skull of D. frenata, Gray, would seem to indicate that this species attained
a greater size than the Bornean JD. mu/ri/na, M. and S., because, although the perma-
»1 «.
2 Abhandl. Akad. Wiss. Berl. 1864.
3 Sitzgsber. Akad. Wien, vol. lx. (1870), p. 263.
4 Proc. Zool. Soc. Loud. 1848, p. 23.
3 Verhandl., I, p. 167, tab. 26, fig. 5, et tab. 27.
figs. 17 & 18