Fennecus. Dentium formula.—Dentes primores 6—66—6, laniarii 1—11—1, molares 6—67—7?

F. supra rufescenti-albus, subtus pallidior; maculâ suboculari rufâ; caudæ maculâ sub-basali nigrescenti-brunneâ, apice nigro.

Dimensions.Inches.
Length of the head from the extremity of the nose to the occiput,3⅜
Breadth between the eyes,0⅞
Length of ears,3⅛
Breadth of do. at the widest part,2
Breadth of the cranium between the ears,1⅝
Length from the occiput to the insertion of the tail,9½
Tail,6
[85]Height before, from the ground to the top of the back, above the shoulder,6⅝
[85]Height behind, to the top of the back above the loins,7½
Breadth of the extremity of the nose,0⁵⁄₁₆
Length of the middle claws of the fore feet,0⁷⁄₁₆
Exterior do. do.0½
Middle and exterior claws of the hind feet,0½

The general colour is white, slightly inclining to straw-yellow; above, from the occiput to the insertion of the tail it is light rufous brown, delicately pencilled with fine black lines, from thinly scattered hairs tipped with black; the exterior of the thighs is lighter rufous brown; the chin, throat, belly, and interior of the thighs and legs are white, or cream colour. The nose is pointed, and black at the extremity; above, it is covered with very short, whitish hair inclining to rufous, with a small irregular rufous spot on each side beneath the eyes; the whiskers are black, rather short and scanty; the back of the head is pale rufous brown. The ears are very large, erect, and pointed, and covered externally with short, pale, rufous-brown hair; internally, they are thickly fringed on the margins with long greyish-white hairs, especially in front; the rest of the ears, internally, is bare; externally, they are folded or plaited at the base. The tail is very full, cylindrical, of a rufous-brown colour, and pencilled with fine black lines like the back; its colour is rather deeper above than on the under part, and there is a small dark brown spot, at about an inch below its insertion on the upper side; the ends of the hairs at the extremity of the tail are black, forming a black tip about three quarters of an inch long. The anterior feet are pentadactylous, the posterior tetradactylous, and both are covered to the claws with moderately long whitish hairs, slightly inclining to straw-yellow; the claws are of a yellowish-white, or light horn-colour, moderately hooked, very much compressed, and very sharp; those on the hinder toes are most compressed, longest, and least arched. The fur is very soft and fine; that on the back, from the forehead to the insertion of the tail, as well as that on the upper part of the shoulder before, and nearly the whole of the hinder thigh, is formed of tri-coloured hairs, the base of which is of a dark lead colour, the middle white, and the extremity light rufous brown.

The teeth of our animal are much worn, apparently by age; the incisors in the upper jaw are nearly even, the second pair rather broader than the rest; of those in the lower jaw, the outer pair are considerably the largest.

The imperfect state of the teeth, and the difficulty of examining them accurately without having the skull detached, forbids us to be confident as to the number of grinders in either jaw. From the most careful inspection, however, that we could make in the actual state of the specimen, we are inclined to believe that the system of dentition closely, if not exactly, resembles that of the dog. In the present state of uncertainty, whilst opinions of the highest authority are so discordant as to the genus to which this animal should be referred, we do not feel ourselves at liberty to disturb the arrangement adopted by Lacépède, Illiger, and Desmarest, but leave the ultimate decision of the question to future naturalists, who may possess more unequivocal data for its solution. One thing, indeed, is pretty obvious, namely, that if Major Denham’s animal be not the identical species described by Bruce, it certainly belongs to the same genus; for as it does not appear that Bruce himself ever possessed a detached skull of the Fennec, it is very easy to imagine that he could not accurately ascertain the number of molar teeth in the head of a living animal of such vivacity and quickness, and which was so impatient of being handled, that he could not obtain a correct measurement of its ears, or even count the number of paps on its belly. With such an animal it is not unlikely, moreover, that the two last tubercular grinders should escape the notice of any one attempting to examine the mouth under circumstances so disadvantageous, those teeth being in some measure concealed by the large projecting carnivorous tooth immediately before them. That it cannot be a Galago, as M. Geoffroy Saint Hilaire imagines, is sufficiently evident; and M. Desmarest has given no less than six distinct, and, we think, conclusive reasons against that opinion, through which, however, we must not follow him at present. The subject has already grown under our hands to a far greater bulk than we intended, and we conclude it by taking leave to question the validity of M. Geoffroy Saint Hilaire’s argument respecting the general veracity of Mr. Bruce, and consequently to enter our protest against his Fennec being classed with the Quadrumana.

We retain, provisionally, the generic name of Fennecus, first proposed by Lacépède, and the specific one of Cerdo, adopted by Gmelin; but should the animal ultimately prove to be a different species from Canis cerdo, M. Desmarest’s specific appellation of Brucii may with propriety be assigned to it.

Genus.Ryzæna. Ill.

Species 2.—Ryzæna tetradactyla.