OCR Text |
Show 1890.] MR. W. L. SCLATER ON SOME INDIAN MURID.E. 529 21. Mus CERVICOLOR, Hodgs.; Thomas, P.Z. S. 1881, p. 547. There does not seem to be any true distinction between this species and Mus (Leggada) buduga. Thomas allows that they are nearly allied, but asserts that they can be distinguished by the length of their ears ; this distinction, however, does not seem to hold good when the measurements of many individuals are taken. Mus cunicularis of Blyth, as is suggested by Thomas, seems to be in every way identical with Mus cervicolor. The specimens procured by Blyth from near Calcutta mentioned by Thomas seem to be better placed under Mus (Leggada) buduga than under this species, since they are particularly short-eared, and some of them show distinct traces of the extra anterior cusp to the molar, which is the distinctive, though by no means constant, mark of the genus Leggada. 22. Mus NITIDULUS, Blyth; Thomas, P. Z. S. 1881, p. 550. The type of this species, which should be in the Indian Museum, is nowhere to be found ; it was, perhaps, lost during the transference of the Asiatic Society's collections to the present Museum. It is therefore impossible to be certain whether Thomas's identification of this species is correct or not. There is in the Indian Museum a collection of mice from Dar-jeeling presented by Dr. G. King, and another single specimen from the Khasia Hills, which seem to resemble in certain particulars Mus nitidulus of Thomas. In these the fur is long, and in some of the specimens spiny ; the tail, which varies somewhat in length, is bicolorous, brown above and white below; but the anterior edge of the outer wall of the infraorbital foramen is not slanting, except perhaps slightly so in one specimen from the Khasia Hills ; and the hind foot does not seem to be longer than the distance from the muzzle to the ear. Until, however, authenticated specimens of Thomas's Darjeeling species can be examined, our specimens may remain as Mus nitidulus, since there is certainly no other species hitherto described with which they can be identified. 23. Mus HUMEI, Thomas, P. Z. S. 1886, p. 63, pi. v. This species was described by Thomas from specimens procured by Mr. H u m e in Munipur; it appears to be allied to Mus erythrotis, from which it differs in being considerably larger. There are no specimens of it in the Indian Museum. 24. Mus ERYTHROTIS, Blyth, J. A. S. B. xxiv. p. 721. The type of this species, of which, unfortunately, the skull appears to have been mislaid, seems to be immature ; there is, however, in the Museum another specimen from the same locality, Cherra Punji, which agrees with the type in every way except that it is slightly larger. |