Mr. O. '^J^lionias on a neni SiperJes o/" Merioncfi. 147 



Skull stouter and licavier. Nasals of more equal breadtli 

 tlirou^liout, not so markedly compressed and pointed ante- 

 riorly, nor so much bowed in profile. Frontal region broader, 

 and the postorbital processes projecting nmeh further out from 

 the skull. 



Dimensions. — Head and body (from skin) (e.) 4o0 milliin., 

 tail, with tuft, (c.) GO, ear from crown behind 83, hind foot 

 107. 



Skull : greatest length, from occiput to gnathion, 83 ; 

 iiasals, greatest length 3o, combined breadth anteriorly 15 

 (against 11*5 in a good Shanghai specimen of L. s. fi/picus), 

 posteriorly 18'8 (against 19-2); least interorbital breadth 21 

 (against 18) ; least intertemporal breadth 12*2 (against 12'2) ; 

 distance from the bottom of the postorbital notch to a point 

 on the outer edge of the postorbital process level with it 

 transversely 8 (against 5'4). Palate, length 34. Diastema 

 22. Breadth of palatal bridge 7. Antero-posterior diameter 

 of bulla 10-5 (against 11-8). 



Hab. Soul, the capital of Corea. 



Ti/pe a skin obtained on Jan. 28, 1889, and presented to 

 the Museum by Mr. Charles W. Campbell, of Her Majesty's 

 Consular Service. 



As the Museum at present possesses only summer skins of 

 L. sineiisis typicus^ it is possible that the above differences in 

 colour will prove to be only a seasonal character ; but the 

 skull differences are so marked and so constant in a series of 

 S. Chinese skulls that I do not feel justified in allocating the 

 Corean hare to the older-known form. 



Should, however, the colour differences prove to be con- 

 stant throughout the year it is possible that it will be found 

 necessary to elevate L. sinensis coreanus to the rank of a 

 distinct species. 



XXV. — Description of a neio Species o/Meriones _//•(?//« 

 Falestine. By Oldfield Thomas. 



The Gerbille now described belongs to the group known as 

 Meriones, a group which, in agreement with Brandt and 

 Lataste, and differing from F. Cuvier, Blanford, and Biichner, 

 I consider differs so essentially from Gerbillus as to merit its 

 retention as a distinct genus. 



I propose, in honour of its discoverer, to name the species 



10* 



