1920.] H. C. Robinson & C. B. Kloss : Viverridae. 179 



On the other hand the specimen will not fit in with Wrough- 

 ton's synopsis of the genus as given latei (Journ. Bombay Nat. 

 Hist. Soc. XXV, 1917, pp. 48-51 ; XXVI, 1918, p. 49) and we 

 cannot but think that some topographical confusion has taken 

 place. 



The Zoological Survey also possesses a specimen from the 

 Dafla Hills which agrees, so far as its condition permits to say, 

 with the form described as Paradoxurus vicinus Schwarz {Ann. 

 and Mag. Nat. Hist. (8) VI, 19 10, p. 230) from Assam which 

 Wroughton has identified with Paradoxurus hermaphroditus strict- 

 us, Horsfield {Ann. and Mag. Nat. Hist. (2) XVI, 1837, P- io5- 

 Nepal plains). 



It appears that Paradoxurus hirmanicus, Wroughton {op. cit. 

 XXIV, 20th March 1917, p. 51), from Sagaing^ Upper Burma, is 

 antedated by Paradoxurus hermaphroditus laotum Gyldenstolpe 

 {Kungl. Sv. Vet. Akad. Handl.^ 57, No. 2, 2nd Feb. 1917, p. 26, 

 pi. iv, figs. 2, 4) from Chiengmai, North Siam, since Wroughton 

 himself says that this race extends throughout Burma eastwards 

 into Siam and south to meet in Tenasserim P. h. ravus Miller, 

 which is the North Malayan form. More recently Gyldenstolpe, 

 who has presumably examined Burmese material, states {Journ. 

 Nat. Hist. Soc. Siam, III, 1919, p. 147, note) that P. hirmanicus 

 is absolutely' identical with P. h. laotum. 



A specimen in the Zoological Survey recorded as from 

 Rangoon but obtained from a Menagerie is not this race but 

 belongs to the bondar section and can be matched by examples 

 from Calcutta. Its locality is probably wrong. 



