ALTICOLA 329 



of individual age they form a very uniform series and suffice to 

 show that A. (P.) strelzowi is one of the best-marked species in 

 Central Asia. It may, hereafter, turn out to be merely a sub- 

 species of the imperfectly known " Mus " alliarius Pallas described 

 below. 



2. Alticola (Platycranius) alliarius Pallas. 

 1779. Mus alliarius Pallas, Nov. Spec. Quadr. Glir. Ord., p. 252. 

 1901. Microlus (Platycranius t) alliarius Kascenko, Ann. Mus. Zool. 

 Acad. Imp. So. St. Peterabourg, 6, p. 201. 



Type. — Unknown . 



Type locality. — Neighbourhood of Jenisseisk, Jenisseisk 

 Province, Siberia. 



Range. — Apparently from Jenisseisk eastwards to the north- 

 eastern extremity of Lake Baikal. 



Pallas states that the species had been well known for a long 

 time to the inhabitants of the environs of Jenisseisk, Karum, and 

 Angara, in consequence of its habit of invading their cellars, 

 where it devoured onions and other acrid bulbs ; he received 

 his two specimens in fluid from the neighbourhood of Jenisseisk. 



Characters. — The species is known only from Pallas's descrip- 

 tion and his figure of its skull. Both clearly apply to a member 

 of the subgenus Platycranius. Apart from the difference of 

 locality, the only important point of difference between A. (P.) 

 alliarius and A. (P.) strelzowi seems to be that the former has a 

 bicoloured tail (" Cauda, prseter tractum supra fuscum, alba "), 

 whereas in the latter it is essentially unicoloured. Pallas states 

 that his animal possesses six mammae (" Mammae duse pectorales, 

 totidem abdominales et duae inguinales "), not eight as in other 

 species of Alticola. But that discrepancy is readily explained. 

 Pallas's measurements indicate that his specimens were immature. 

 Kascenko raises another objection pointing out that the lateral 

 view of the skull of " Mus alliarius " (presumably a Platycranius) 

 is no more depressed than is that of " Mus gregalis " (a Steno- 

 cranius) given on the same plate (Nov. Spec. Quadr. Glir. Ord., 

 Tab. xxvii, figs, xvii 22* and xvii 20*). That is perfectly true 

 so far as it goes. But if we compare Pallas's fig. xvii 22* with 

 a skull of Platycranius we see that the figure is a very fair 

 representation of the skull ; and on turning to fig. xvii 20* we 

 see that although the dorsal view (fig. xvii 20* B) is a fair 

 representation of a Stenocranius, the profile (fig. xvii 20* A) is not. 

 I am inclined to believe that by some mischance Platycranius 

 served as the model for both the lateral views in question. 



