NO. 1976. TREESHREWS: FAMILY TUPAIID^—LYON. 103 



man throughout the Malayaxi region." ^ I can not agree with him 

 that any of the existing treeshrews introduced into the Nicobars by 

 man would have had sufficient time to develop into such a striking 

 species as Tupaia nicoharica. Its origin and relationship must for 

 the present remain unsolved. 



TUPAIA NICOBARICA NICOBARICA (Zelebor). 



1861. Cladobates nicoharicus Fitzinger, Sitz. Akad. Wiss. Math. Nat. Wien, vol. 



42, 1860, p. 392 {nomen nudum). 

 1869. Cladobates nicoharicus Zelebor, Reise Novara, Zool. Theil, vol. 1, p. 17, 



pi. 1, fig. 1, entire animal natural size in colors; figs. 2 and 3, soles of fore 



and hind feet; pi. 2, skull, skeleton, and teeth. 

 1879. Tupaia nicoharica, Anderson, Zool. Res. West. Yunnan, p. 136, pi. 7, fig. 



3, skull. 

 1902. Tupaia nicoharica nicoharica, Miller, Proc. U. S. Nat. Mus., vol. 24, p. 773, 



May 29, 1902. 



Type-locality. — Great Nicobar, of the Nicobar Islands. 



Type-specimens. — According to Fitzinger/ these are in the Impe- 

 rial Zoological Museum at Vienna. I have not seen them. In the 

 original account are mentioned an alcoholic specimen, a skeleton, and 

 four stuffed individuals. 



Geographic distribution. — Great Nicobar, of the Nicobar Islands. 

 See No. 40 on map on page 75. 



Diagnosis. — Distinguished by having the light areas brighter and 

 more yellowish, and more strongly contrasted with the dark areas 

 than in the case of the form from Little Nicobar Island; mammae 

 1-1 = 2 



Color. — With the differences noted in the diagnosis, the color of 

 Tupaia nicoharica nicoharica is sufficiently described in the general 

 account of the species. 



SliuU and teeth. — There are no characters by which these may be 

 distinguished from those of the other subspecies. 



Measurements.- — Usual measurements of adults: Head and body, 

 180-195 mm; tail, 200-225; hind foot, 45-50; condylo-basal length, 

 47-50; zygomatic width, 26-29; width of brain case, 19-20; maxillary 

 tooth row, 18-19. See table, page 104. 



Specimens examined. — Twenty-four. 



Remarks. — There are a few individuals in the series of specimens of 

 this, the typical subspecies, that cannot be distinguished with cer- 

 tainty from the form T. n. surda that follows. 



1 Proc. U. S. Nat. Mus.^ vol. 24, p. 791, May 29, 1902. 



2 Sitz. Akad. Wiss. Math. Nat. Wien, vol. 60, 1869, pt. 1, p. 279, 



