THE LEOPARD. a5 
cal opposite uses of the terms Leopard and Panther, which 
may be epitomised as follows :— 
Temminck. Sterndale, Jerdon. 
African form... ive (CESMEREE vse (?) oe (?) 
Smaller Indian form ... Panther... Panther’ ... Leopard. 
Larger Indian form ... Leopard ... Leopard. ... Panther. 
Now it is admitted on all hands that the larger and smaller 
Indian forms are very close indeed to one another, Mr. Blan- 
ford observing that he finds it frequently impossible to “ de- 
termine to which of the two supposed forms an Indian skin 
should be referred.” On the other hand, an African skin is, 
as a tule, distinguished by the spots being very much smaller, 
and many of them without light centres. 
This being so, it may be submitted that if the two Indian 
forms are regarded as distinct, the African animal is at least 
equally entitled to distinction. ‘This being admitted, as well 
as the right of the latter to the title of Panther, it follows that 
if we take (as appears probably right) the term Leopard as ap- 
plicable to the larger Indian form, the smaller Indian animal 
has no name at all! 
It is far from our intention to further complicate matters by 
proposing any new name, or, indeed, for that matter, deciding 
as to the proper application of the terms Leopard and Panther; 
our object being merely to show the different senses in which 
they are commonly used. 
We may accordingly pass on to the question as to whether 
there is really any specific distinction between any or all of the 
animals above-mentioned. The late Mr. Blyth seems to have 
been the first of modern naturalists to come to the conclusion 
that all of them formed but a single species. He was followed, 
in a somewhat half-hearted way, by Jerdon, and this half- 
heartedness is even more conspicuous in Mr. Saunderson’s 
book, wherein, while the two Indian forms are spoken of as 
