96 Records of the Indian Museum. [Voi,. Ill, 



The alternativ^e view, that the first Nesokice were sports born 

 from Gioioiiiys, which estabhshed a famih' group and afterwards 

 a widespread race, seems more in accordance with the evidence 

 afforded by the present enquiry. The writer must confess that 

 he has acquiesced in the generic distinction of Gunomys and 

 Ncsokia partly in order to heighten the effect of his argu- 

 ment. It must, however, be admitted that they are distinct 

 animal forms, possessing characteristic features of more weight 

 than those shown by some of the recently discovered species 

 of Mhs. 



The writer has already expressed the opinion that the system 

 of classification of animals now in vogue is unsatisfactory. The 

 system seems unsatisfactor}- because it does not alw^ays offer a true 

 picture of the way in which animal forms occur in nature. The 

 systematist holds that every individual animal must be assignable 

 to a particular species; and further, that species if properly defined, 

 are elementary and indivisible, and approximately of equal value. 

 This conception appears wholh^ true to those who examine small 

 numbers of animals from many places. It must seem onh^ partially 

 true to those who examine large numbers of animals taken from 

 a few places. It may be admitted that races such as those enu- 

 merated I — 4, which are regarded as elementary or true species, 

 are approximately of equal value ; but what is their relation to the 

 heterogeneous mass of rats which extend through India and beyond, 

 a race so definitely variable that three or more individual members 

 of it living in Cawnpore in the heart of India, can be distinguished 

 at a glance from one another, while each one of them is indistin- 

 guisJiahle from one of three individuals caught on a ship at Freemantle, 

 Australia. The members of this heterogeneous mass are bound 

 together b}' the fact that they all possess the same t3'pe of skull, 

 the same characteristic foot pads, and a tail variable in length, 

 but seldom or never shorter than the head and body. Moreover, 

 the races i — 4 also resemble the mass in these features but they are 

 each clearly separated b}" their own special marks. 



How can these various races be accurately represented by 

 our nomenclature ? It is surely absurd to name the heterogeneous 

 mass Mus rattus, and to give the races i — 4 equivalent names. 

 Sj'stematists admit that Mus rattus is not a species equivalent 

 to the others, but they seem to think that it will ultimately be 

 possible to split it up into a number of equal groups, each a true 

 indivisible species. Hossack's figures show that it is not possible, 

 and the writer has met with the same impossibility. 



One writer, in dealing with Siamese rats [18], simpl}' excludes the 

 common rats from his S3'stem. Another places the common rat of 

 Borneo [19] in the group of the European house rats and describes 

 them as " a group which has been the bane of workers on the 

 Oriental Muridae, and which at present owing to want of material 

 is quite impossible to bring into any sort of order." The con- 

 viction is expressed here that it will ultimately be possible to place 

 these rats in the Linnean system. 



