CANIS VULPES. 97 



speaks of its resemblance to the Common Fox, and Blanford, after 

 having treated it as a distinct species, now considers it but a varietv 

 of the Common Fox. As this form has been a subject of so much doubt, 

 we think it well to give a figure of the variety. Our Plate XXII. 

 represents the type of this reputed species. C. himalaicus of Ogilbv 

 belongs to this variety of C. vulpes. 



Another variety, as wc deem it, is that which was first described 



by Gray as Vulpes favesccns, of which we have seen specimens 



oI)tained from Thibet, as well as from Persia. The best account of 



this form is given by Blanford in his ' Mammalia of the Yarkand 



Mission,' p. l-l, plate ii. Therein he expressed his suspicion, rather 



than belief, that C. favescens is a really different animal from C. mon- 



fanus. He tells us : " That the two are closely allied is certain, and 



it is extremely doubtful whether any definite characters can be found to 



distinguish them." Cranial and dental characters afford better criteria ; 



but here, again, distinctions break down. He observes : — " As a rule, 



the skulls of I', viontana are larger," but one skull of V. montana 



scarcely differs in measurement from that oi F. favesccns. Distinctions 



in the relative size of the teeth are to be more relied on, but, from his 



dimensions, the length of the first upper molar oiflavescens only differs 



from that of montana — the fourth upper premolar being taken as 100 — 



as 69'22 diff'ers from G9'43. He notes, indeed, certain difi'erences as 



existing between the teeth o{ flnvescens tmA the Common European Fox, 



but sagaciously and most truly adds : — " There is, however, sufficient 



variation amoncrst the teeth of these skulls to render it doubtful how far 



specific characters can be made to depend upon them alone." These 



doubts seem to us to be put an end to by this author's ' Fauna of 



British India,' wherein he identifies both C. montanus and C.Jlavescens 



with the Common F'ox. Any doubt which might have lingered in our 



own mind as to the validity of such an identification is dissipated by the 



judgment of a naturalist not only so distinguished and able, but one 



who has enjoyed such exceptional opportunities for arriving at a correct 



final decision on the subject. We regard, then, the variety C. montanus 



as a Himalayan variety of the Common F^ox, and C. Jlavescens as another 



variety from Central Asia. We represent in our Plate XXIII. the type 



specimen of C.Jlavescens. 



