450 FELIS. 
to rings near the tip; the ground color rufous like that of body. 
Back of ears rufous, black on outer edge. (From Mon. Felide, ex 
Spec. in Brit. Museum, representing typical style.) Other examples 
are gray, yellowish brown, or reddish buff, and the patterns have 
endless variety. 
Measurements. Total length, about 890; tail, 280. 
458. glaucula (felis), Thomas, Ann. Mag. Nat. Hist., 7th Ser., x11, 
1903, P. 235. 
SMALL SPOTTED Cat. 
Type locality. Beltran, State of Jalisco, Mexico. 
Color. General color pale drab gray; linear black markings 
narrow, and inclosing on the sides elongate spaces; central pale line 
on back, with a double series of broken black lines on each side; on 
shoulders and hips the markings form rosettes with deep black bor- 
ders; central spaces of rosettes gray, darker than the ground color; 
black line across lower part of jaw, and one across chest; belly 
spotted with black; limbs buffy gray on outer side, white on inner, 
and spotted to feet; tail with rr or 12 black rings. 
Measurements. Total length, toro (overstretched); tail, 410: 
hind foot, 108; ear, 48. Skull: greatest length, 94.5; basal line, 82; 
zygomatic breadth, 63; median length of nasals, 16.5; interorbital 
breadth, 18; across postorbital processes, 49; interorbital constriction, 
30.5; breadth across frontals, 38; across parietals, 43; palatal length, 
35; length of bullz, 20.5.* 
tpardinoides oneilla (Felts), ‘Thomas, Atnmi. Mag. Nat.. Hist.; 7th 
Der; X11, 1190257. 29 7 
OUNCE-LIKE Cart. 
Type locality. Volcan de Irazu, Costa Rica. 
*With the exception that the general ground color is said to be gray in- 
stead of fulvous or tawny (also two distinctive hues), there is nothing in Mr. 
Thomas’s description (1. c.), from which the above was taken, to enable any 
one to distinguish this form from F. izgrina, and this light color may be, as 
it is in other cases, an individual peculiarity. It is to be regretted that new 
names should be given to the spotted cats, whose synonymy is already so vol- 
uminous, until at least some agreement can be reached as to what forms the 
majority of these appellations should be restricted, for new names with per- 
plexing descriptions only serve to increase the confusion that may already 
exist. 
}This animal is compared with F. pardinoides Gray, which has not been 
satisfactorily separated from F. geoffroyi. It is reasonable to expect that this 
should be done before a subspecies of F’. pardinoides is created. It would 
be difficult to accurately determine that any specimen was the same as Mr. 
Thomas’s species without comparison with the type, as there are but slight 
specific characters indicated in the description, unless a “‘richer and deeper 
ground color’? may be so considered, but which is a comparative distinction 
of questionable value. 
