420 MURIDZ—EVOTOMYS 
with that of 4. britannicus. From those of /. nagert nageri and 
EL n. norvegicus eee next page), which agree with it in size, it 
differs in its great relative depth, in the short, broad, rather strongly 
ridged and angled brain-case, conspicuous mastoid region, and un- 
usually elongate, centrally contracted almost spatulate nasals, which 
are decidedly longer than the diastema. The post-orbital processes of 
the squamosals are small, but unusually well defined, and send well- 
developed ridges backwards and upwards nearly to the anterior edges 
of the parietals. 
The cheek-teeth are large, and similar to those of xagev7z, #:* having 
normally three infolds on the inner side (Fig. 63). 
DIMENSIONS IN MILLIMETRES :— 





| Tail (with- | Hind foot | Ear 
| Bed en outtermina)) (without | (greatest 
| hairs). | claws). | length). 
1. Male, 7th April 1900 (No. 8.7.4.3 of | 
British Museum calbotion)s.) MEISE 
Mills (type of species) 108 59 1S 13 
2. Seven males and five females— | | 
Minimum s . 5 - 6 105 | 50 17 12 | 
| | 
INTC EMG) Mo aw ese WE en 1095 | 55° 18 | 18:5 
| | 
Maximum cb - - 5 5 114 | 61 19 | 15 
3. One mentioned by Miller. . | 121 oe ae | 

Skull :—Condylo-basal length, 24:8 to 25-8; breadth at zygomata 
14:2 to 15; at inter-orbital constriction, 4 to 4-2; at occiput, 12 to 12-6; 
median occipital depth, 6-4 to 7:0; greatest length of nasals, 7-6 to 
8-2; of diastema, 6-8 to 7-2; of mandible, 15-6 to 16-4; of maxillary tocth- 
row, 5:6 to 6; of mandibular tooth-row, 5-4 to 5:8. 
History :—Specimens of this mouse were taken by Drane at 
Skomer Island in June 1897. He saw at once that his captures 
differed from g/areolus, being much larger and having distinct teeth 
(“A Pilgrimage to Golgotha,” in Rep. and Trans. Cardiff Nat. Soc., 
xxxi., 1898-99, 46, 1900). In an account read 15th Dec. 1898 (7vans. 
ctt., XXxXiii., 1900-1901, published 1902), of a second visit to Skomer 
Island in June 1898, Drane added that he felt inclined to regard his mice 
as representing “a hitherto unnoticed variety.” He took every trouble 
to get his specimens correctly named, and for that purpose he submitted 
them, both living and dead, to the Linnean Society of London (Pvec., 
June 1899, 63), and to the authorities of the British Museum; but so 
great was the lack of knowledge at that date that he received no more 
satisfactory answer than vague suggestions about a “local variety of 
glareolus.” 
