116 



it is said to be rare. The present specimen, whicli is in excellent 

 condition, was brought from thence by Dr. Sandham, surgeon of 

 the 1 Ith Light Dragoons, by vvhom it was presented to the Museum 

 of the Army Medical Department. It is brought under the notice 

 of this Society with the sanctionof the Director General, Sir James 

 McGrigor, Bart. 



" This animal has been almost entirely neglected by systematic 

 writers. It was alluded to by Pennant, but in so short, vague, and 

 unsatisfactory a manner, that it is impossible to form any distinct 

 notion of it. Shaw followed and copied the fe\v words of Pennant 

 which relate to it, and termed it Ursus Jndicus. Lastly, the late 

 General Hardwicke, whose talents and perseverance made him fa- 

 miliar with the natūrai history of Northern India, published some 

 account of it in the llth volume of the 'Linnean Transactions'. 

 But it does not appear that he considered it as different from the 

 Rat. Caperisis, or was sufEciently aware of its peculiarities to enable 

 him to erect it into a distinct species. A specimen formerly living 

 in the collection of this Society was understood to have been 

 brought from Madras. 



" In the synopsis of Mammalia, in GrifBth's translation of the 

 * Animal Kingdom', there is merely a note stating that the Ursus 

 Indicus of Shaw is probably a variety of the Ratel. The French 

 authors have entirely neglected it ; neither the Baron nor M. F. 

 Cuvier makes any mention of it. M. Lesson, still later, asserts that 

 there is but one species in this genus ; ' On n'en connait qu'une 

 seule espėce, — Ratel du Cap.' " — E. B. 



Mr. Burton subsequently exhibited a specimen of an Agriopus, 

 Cuv., which he regarded as hitherto undescribed. He character- 

 ized it as the 



Agriopus unicolor. Agr. brunneo-fulvus ; dentibus setaceis 

 maxillaribus ; radiis moUibus pinnce dorsalis quatuordecini, 

 ana lis decem. 



"IKisJish bears a general resemblance to Agr. forvus, Cuv. & Vai., 

 the type of the genus. Its length is nearly similar, but the body is 

 more slender and compressed, particularly tovvards the middle. 

 The lower outline is sufficiently regular, The dorsal line from the 

 eighth to the fourteenth spinous ray is somewhat concave, if, how- 

 ever, this effect be not produced by imperfect stufEng. The eyes 

 protrude less than in Agr.torvus. The profile furnishes one of the 

 most marked distinctions betvveen the two species : that part be- 

 tween the eyes, instead of being vertical, slopes considerably ; and 

 the line of the snout, in place of descending in an angle of about 

 forty-five degrees, is very nearly horizontai, or in a line with the 

 body. The mouth is somewhat deeper. 



" The next remarkable variation is in the teeth. The observation 

 which Cuvier and M. Valenciennes have applied to those of ^^r. 

 torvus — ' c'est a peine si l'on sent aux machoires queiques petits 

 dents en velours ' — is by no means applicable here. On the con- 

 (rary, they are very conspicuous, rather ' en carde ' than ' en 



