OCR Text |
Show 1881.] INDIAN SPECIES OF MUS. 535 Table of Measurements. Head and body Tail Hind foot Forearm and hand Ear-conch, length... Var. alexandrinus. Cashmere. 4 2 61 6*3 7*1 7*3 1-4 1-25 1*66 1*50 •68 *71 1-44 1*49 Muscat. 2 61 9*3 1-29 1*64 •85 1-55 Var. nitidus. Darjiling. 6 6 2 6*8 6*45 5*8 7*3 6*7 6*2 1*45 1*4 1*2 1-8 1-7 1*5 •76 *78 *71 1*72 1-56 1*38 Var. rufescens. Madras. 2 5*6 6*7 1-45 1*67 •71 1*4 Ceylon. 2 5*2 7*65 1*22 1-45 •70 1*31 These varieties seem to grade insensibly into one another. The Rats of Cashmere and the neighbouring region agree perfectly with Egyptian specimens of M. alexandrinus1; then, proceeding southwards, we find their fur becoming rather coarser and more rufous, and the animals themselves becoming smaller, though presenting still much the same proportions. On the other hand, as we go from Cashmere to Nepal, we find every intermediate stage between the true M. alexandrinus and the fine-haired, comparatively short-tailed var. nitidus2. W e must therefore consider them all to be of but one species, especially as we often find specimens which, without a knowledge of locality, it would be quite impossible to assign with certainty to any one of these three different forms. With regard to the name adopted for the South-Indian variety, Mr. Blanford has kindly examined for me the types of Mus indicus, Geoffr., in the Paris Museum, and tells m e that they are most certainly specimens of the Rat generally known as M. rufescens, Gr.; and as their locality (Pondicherry) is a place where M. rufescens would naturally be found, I think there can be no doubt whatever as to the correctness of Mr. Blanford's opinion. As, however, the name M. indicus has been previously used by Bechstein, the later name M. rufescens must still stand for the Common Rat of the peninsula of India. The types of both M. indicus and M. rufescens have been much stretched, so as to have given rise to the erroneous statement in each case " Tail shorter than the head and body." I have not space to discuss the various synonyms given above ; but it will be seen that we have the types of a great number of these so-called species ; and those of Hodgson's names to which I have not prefixed an asterisk merely represent forms of which we really possess the typical specimens among our series, but, as they are not specially marked as such, I am unable to lay m y hand upon them. 1 In Dr. Scully's most useful paper " On the Mammals of Gilgit" (P. Z. S. 1881, p. 204), we find the following:-" The Gilgit Bat is not separable from the so-called M. rufescens of Calcutta, or M. robustus, Blyth, of Burma; and it also agrees in all essential characters with M. alexandrinus, Geoff. A specimen of M. alexandrinus from Algeria, in the British Museum, only differs from one of my Gilgit specimens in having rather harsher fur." 2 The typical M. rufescens is also found in Nepal, there being a considerable series of this form from that country sent by Dr. Anderson. |