130 LLOYD’S NATURAL HISTORY, 
are scarcely distinguishabl@gfrom those of Horsfield’s type of 
F. javanensis. In both the characteristic points mentioned— 
the marks in the interscapulary region, and the spots on the 
tail—the two skins agree with / dengalensis, and not with 
F. rubiginosa. ‘To complete the evidence, Mr. Thomas has 
had the skull of one of the skins of # jerdoni extracted, and it 
proves to possess the anterior upper pre-molar and imperfect 
orbit of / dengalensis. I have, therefore, not the least hesita- 
tion in assigning / jerdoni, as a variety, to that species, and 
I believe it to be identical with the form commonly known 
as F&F. javanensis. ‘The locality of neither specimen of /. jer 
doni in the National Collection is known ; but, considering, 
that so closely similar a form has been described from Java, 
whilst there is no evidence as to the derivation of the Madras 
Museum specimens, it is far from improbable that Mr. Blyth 
was mistaken in his supposition [as to their Indian origin], and 
that these skins were really brought originally from Malacca or 
the neighbourhood.” 
In the Himalayan variety of this species (/ pardochroa), as 
represented in our first illustration, the ground-colour of the 
upper-parts is pale rufescent, with the spots usually more or 
less angular in form, and with their front border brown and the 
hinder margin black. Whereas, however, in some examples 
the spots are large and almost triangular, with the apex 
directed backwards, in others they take the form of small | 
elongated ovals. The so-called Nipal Cat (/ zipalensis) was 
founded on a grey phase, which there is some reason for be- 
lieving may have been a hybrid. In another Indian variety 
the black spots tend to form longitudinal lines, enclosing rich 
bands of rufous-brown between them ; the bands being broken 
up more or less completely into large rosettes, dark brown at 
the centres, with imperfect black rings on the margins. This 
form is perhaps the handsomest and most striking of all, 
