SCIENTIIIC RESULTS FROM THE MAMMAL SURVEY. 93r, 



as those of B. M. No. 76, 3, 10, 2, one of Blanford's co-types, 

 this fine Gerbil is distinguished by its darker richer colour, the 

 decidedly greater development of the tail tuft, and its larger 

 hvdlse. 



M, amhrosius, Thos. of Western Persia is nearly allied, but 

 has a brighter buffy colour and much smaller buUaj. 



With the entire agreement of Mr. Wroughton I have named this 

 handsome animal after N. A. Baptista, who acted as Col. Hotson's 

 taxidermist, and to whose collecting powers the Survey is already 

 so much indebted. 



DlPODILLUS INDUS, Sp. n. 



General characters as in I), nanus but size distinctly smaller and 

 tail less heavily tufted. 



Skull smaller throughout than in nanus, and the bullas especially 

 very considerablj^ smaller. Indeed the bullae of the Baluchistan 

 species prove to be unusually large for this genus, approaching 

 those of B. arahmm. 



Dimensions of the type :—}Iead and body, 72 mm.; tail, 117; 

 hind foot, 22; ear, 13. 



Skull : (the measurements in brackets those of D. nanus) 

 median length, 25-5 (27-6); diagonal length to back of bullae 

 25-6 (28); condylo-incisive length, 22-1 (24j ; zj^gouiatic breadth. 

 13-6 (14-7); nasals, 97 (10); bi-meatal breadth, 13-8 (14-2); 

 palatal foramina, 4*3 (5); buUcO, diagonal horizontal length, 9"4 

 (10-3) ; breadth at right angles to last, excluding meatus, 5-7 (6) ; 

 upper molar series, 3'2 (3-5). 



Hab: — Sind, Kathiawar, and Gujerat. Type from Gambat, 

 Khairpur, Sind. 



Tz/j^e:— Aditlt J. B. M. No. 15. 11. 1. 100. Original number 

 825.' Collected 12th April 1915, by S. H. Prater. Presented 

 to the National Museum by the Bombay Natural History 

 Society. 



Six Dipodils are included in Col. Hotson's collection from various 

 localities in S. W. Baluchistan. Blanford having described D. 

 nanus from Saman, Dasht, just a little further South-westwards. 

 I have been able to treat them as practically topo-typical of that 

 species and then make a comparison with the Gerbils from 

 Kathiawar and Sind referred to in the Survey Reports Nos. 10, 12, 

 and 24 as D. nanais. 



I find that the latter are iinquestionably different and have 

 therefore described them as above 



