OCR Text |
Show 528 MR. O. THOMAS O N T H E [May 3, appear to be constant, as a specimen from the Neilgherries has larger ears for its size than any specimen of N. bengalensis that I have seen. As to the skull-characters mentioned, I can only suppose Dr. Anderson had but a small series under examination at the time of writing his paper ; for, as far as I can see, the skulls intergrade completely. Taking the characters as given above, we see that the southern race is certainly a little smaller, but not very much; in fact two Madras specimens of ours are quite as large as average Bengal ones. I cannot see that there is any difference in the outward spread of the zygomatic arches, or in the size of the teeth. As to the anterior palatine foramina, it is true that many specimens of var. bengalensis have these very much broader ; but, on the other hand, some of our Nepal specimens, necessarily of the northern form, have them fully as much contracted as any Madras individuals ; we cannot, therefore, place any reliance on this character. The other characters incidentally mentioned seem all to be either variable or not sufficient to separate the two forms upon. With regard to the name adopted for the species, I cannot agree with Dr. Anderson that Gray's name bengalensis cannot stand. The figure of "Arvicola bengalensis" represents the northern form without a doubt; and even if this name were discarded, it will be seen by the synonymy that there are no less than four other names which would have priority over that give by Dr. Anderson. The types of all of them are in the British Museum, and certainly belong to this species. M. (N.) barclayanus, Anders., as Mr. Blanford (I. c.) has suggested, seems to be only a local variety of N. bengalensis, and not distinct enough to require a name. Mus setifer, Horsf. apud Cantorl (and therefore, fide Blyth, M. andamanensis, Bl.2), is, judging from one of Cantor's own specimens, certainly a Nesokia, and apparently not separable from this species. I do not care, however, definitely to unite them until I have seen spirit specimens from Pinang or the Andamans, as some of the proportions may be different from those of the Bengal species, Cantor's specimen being a much stretched skin. 3. Mus (NESOKIA) BANDICOTA. Le Bat perchal, Buff. Hist. Nat. Supp. vii. p. 276, pi. 69 (1789). Bat perchal and Bandicota, Penn. Hist. Quadr. (ed. 3), ii. pp. 179, 180 (1793). "Der Bandikote," et "die indische Batte" Bechstein, Allgem. Uebers. der vierfiissige Thiere3, ii. pp. 497, 498 (ex Penn.) (1800). Mus bandicota et M. indicus (nee Geoff.), Bechstein, torn. cit. pp. 713, 714 (1800). M. malabaricus et M. perchal, Shaw, Gen. Zool. ii. pt. 1, pp. 54, 55 (1801). M. giganteus, Hardw. Trans. Linn. Soc. vii. p. 306, pi. 18 (1804). 1 J. A. S. B. xv. p. 254, 184G. 2 J. A. S. B. xxix. p. 103, 18G0. 3 A German translation of Pennant's • History of Quadrupeds', published at Weimar in two volumes, 4to, 1799-1800. |