It is not without much hesitation that we have adopted for this animal the generic name of Canis, and referred it, in conformity with the example of most of the leading zoologists of the day, to the same group with the Wolf, the Jackal, and the Fox; from all of which it differs in such important particulars as fully entitle it, in our estimation, to the rank of a distinct and separate genus. To this rank it has, indeed, been already raised by Mr. Brookes, under the generic appellation of Lycaon; but as we are not aware that it has been any where described under that name, or that any detailed account has been given of the characters on which that separation is founded, we cannot consider ourselves authorized in a work of this nature to make any innovations upon science, however much we may feel, as in the present instance, that they are called for by the exigency of the case. That its position is at least doubtful is proved by the fact that M. Temminck, one of the ablest of the continental zoologists, first described it from the living animal under the designation of a Hyæna, and, having subsequently changed his opinion, is now disposed to regard it as a species of dog. For the zoological characters of the latter genus the reader is referred to the following article: at present we shall confine ourselves to the description of the remarkable animal before us, pointing out, as we proceed, the marks by which it differs from both the groups to which it has hitherto been referred, and those by which it is assimilated to either the one or the other. In the shape and elevation of its body it is at first sight distinguished from them both, its legs being considerably longer in relation to its size, and the trunk of its body, as will be seen by the portrait prefixed, being very different in form and proportions. It is entirely destitute of the mane of the Hyæna, and its tail is very similar to that of certain dogs; but, on the other hand, its head approximates very closely, or rather bears a most striking resemblance, to the broad and flattened forehead, and the short and truncated muzzle, which characterize the former genus. It is this latter circumstance no doubt that has induced many naturalists, both popular and scientific, to identify the Wild Dog, as he is called by the settlers at the Cape, with a group of animals from which in every other particular of outward structure, excepting one, it is remarkably and obviously distinct. The only other point of agreement between them consists in the number of its toes, which, like those of the Hyæna, are only four to each foot. This peculiarity, combined with the form of the head, unquestionably affords some ground for placing these animals in close apposition; but is by no means so important, in the absence of other and more essential characteristics, as to warrant their union into a single group. Taken together, however, and in connexion with other features of