292 j\Ir. J. L. Bonliote on Three new 



the plea that, as intermediate forms do not exist, they must 

 be regarded as separate species. 



The present genus offers a very good example of the con- 

 fusion that may arise from adhering to binomials for insular 

 races. 



Messrs. Stone and E,ehn, omitting all Mr. Miller's late 

 species, give a list, excluding synonyms, of eight species, with 

 nothing to show that some are much more closely related 

 than others. 



If Mr. Miller's recent forms be taken into account, we find 

 the number of species doubled, and this mass of names, if not 

 connected in groups as indicated by trinomials, can only lead 

 to confusion rather than to a clearer understanding- of the 

 genus. 



If the subject be carefully studied, we find that there are 

 only four, or, at the most, five species, viz., T. meniinna^ 

 T. Stanleyanus, T. javanicus (Osbeck, nee Gm.) (the T..napii 

 of authors), T. kanchil, Raffles (the T. javanican (Gm.) of 

 authors), and possibly T. fuhiventer. Of the first two species 

 but little is known, while T. javanicus and T. kanchil are 

 represented by a slightly different form on almost all the 

 islands of their range. 



With regard to T. fuTvlventer, externally it much resembles 

 some of the forms of T. kanchil^ but there are certain cranial 

 differences which would seem to point to its being a distinct 

 species. \i its true habitat be Malacca, as is stated by Gray, 

 it must, of course, be regarded as distinct ; but from its 

 general appearance I suspect its real home is to the east 

 either on the mainland or one of the islands, in which case 

 it can only be considered a race of T, kanchil. 



The differences between T. kanchil from Sumatra and 

 T. ka7ichil pelandoc from Java, as stated in the paper quoted 

 above, do not appear to hold good in all cases. In two 

 specimens from Java which I have examined one resembles 

 pelandoc on the throat and kanchil on the nape, while the 

 other has the nape of pelandoc and throat of kanchil, so that 

 further evidence is required as to the distinctions between 

 these forms. 



Messrs. Stone and Rehn appear to have overlooked a 

 species described by Gray under the name of Tragulus affinis 

 (P. Z. S. 18G1, p. 138). Gray, in his description, states 

 that it is a pale-coloured variety much resembling those from 

 Cochin China, and that it is supposed to have come from 

 Singapore. Under these circumstances Mr. Miller was quite 

 justified in describing the form found in the Malay Peninsula 

 as new. 



