Comments: | Does not include (1) Herpestinae Bonaparte, 1845 or Galidiinae Gray, 1865 (Flynn et al., 1988; Gregory and Hellman, 1939; Hunt, 1987; Pocock, 1916c, 1919; Radinsky, 1975; Thenius, 1972; Wozencraft, 1989a, b; Wurster and Benirschke, 1968); (2) Nandinia (Flynn and Nedbal, 1998; Hunt, 2001; Veron and Heard, 2000; Yoder et al., 2003); and (3) Cryptoprocta, Eupleres, and Fossa (Veron, 1995; Veron and Catzeflis, 1993; Veron and Heard, 2000; Yoder et al., 2003). The viverrids are one of the most problematic families of carnivores. Hunt (2001) placed the members of this family into six subfamilies: Prionodontinae (incl. Prionodon, Poiana, and Genetta); Viverrinae (incl. Viverra, Viverricula, Osbornictis, and Civettictis); Euplerinae (incl. Fossa and Eupleres); Cryptoproctinae (Cryptoprocta); Hemigalinae (incl. Hemigalus, Diplogale, Chrotogale, and Cynogale); and Paradoxurinae (incl. Paradoxurus, Paguma, Arctictis, Arctogalidia, and Macrogalidia). Hunt’s (2001) study gave a morphological basis for the separation of the Prionodontinae from the Viverrinae. However, Veron and Heard (2000) raised serious doubts about the monophyly of these subfamilies. They find that neither Hunt’s Prionodontinae, nor the more traditional system of Prionodontinae+Viverrinae would represent monophyletic groups. Gaubert et al. (2004) excluded Prionodon from other Viverrinae based on cytochrome b sequences (followed here). The position of the Malagasy carnivores was not addressed by Hunt’s (2001) study. However, Veron and Catzeflis (1993), Veron (1995), Veron and Heard (2000), and Yoder et al. (2003) have consistently shown that these taxa do not belong within the Viverridae and probably represent a single monophyletic origin for the Malagasy Carnivora. |