44 Mr. R. I. Pocock on the small.and 
smooth brain-case and short face——Including the Mexican and 
Central-American tiger-cats, F. glaucula, Thos., wiedii, Schinz., 
and others. 
II. Size rather smaller. Fur harsher. Nape-hairs not reversed. 
Ground-colour darker. Skull long and narrow, somewhat re- 
sembling that of the jaguarondi, with narrow brain-case and elon- 
gated face. —F. guttula, Hensel. 
III. Size smallest, Fur medium or harsh. Nape-hairs not reversed. 
Skull small and delicate, with smooth brain-case and short face. 
—F. pardinoides, Gray (F. guigna, Hensel, nec Molina). 
IV. Group containing F. geoffroyi, VOrb., and F. salinarum, Thos. 
(=F. guigna, Matsch., nec Mol.). 
V. Group containing a small bright-coloured cat with a delicate skull 
from Cayenne, and identified as F. tigrina, Schreber. 
As Mr. Thomas remarks, doubt and confusion beset the 
determination and nomenclature of the species concerned, 
aud the study of the group is beset with quite unusual dif_i- 
culties owing to the variations in pattern and cranial characters 
exhibited by specimens obtained together and clearly belonging 
to the same species. 
The main circumstance which appears to have prompted 
the publication of this paper by Thomas was the arrival at 
the British Museum of a collection of skins and skulls obtained 
by A. Robert at Roca Nova, in Parana. 
Three of the skulls were sent to Berlin, and were compared 
by Dr, Matschie with the skulls of species from Rio Grande 
do Sul which had been named by Hensel. One of them was 
pronounced to be identical with the skull of the form identified 
by Hensel as macroura (=wiediz). It is, however, with the 
other two that I am now principally concerned. One of 
them—that of a male cat captured at an altitude of 930 to 
1150 metres in Roca Nova, Parana—was declared by Matschie 
to be specifically inseparable from the skull of the form 
described by Hensel as F’. guttula. 
The second skull—that of a female with precisely the same 
particulars on its label—was referred by Matschie to the form. 
identified by Hensel as F. guigna, Mol. But, as Thomas 
pointed out, this cat cannot, on the evidence, be considered 
as precisely identical with the species so named by Molina, 
because the latter came from Valdivia*, on the western side 
of the Andes. On the other hand, a comparison between the 
Parana skull, declared by Matschie to belong to F. guégna, 
Hensel (nec Molina), and the skull of the type of F. pardi- 
noides, Gray, for which no locality was known, enabled 
Thomas to synonymize Hensel’s species with Gray’s. This 
was an important addition to our knowledge. 
* Philippi, Arch. Naturg. xxxix. pt. 1, p. 8 (1878). 
i ———————- <sajgliiiialale 
