116 Mv. R. C. Wrougliton on 



practically no difference between tiiose of these two forms. 

 I have no skull of either typical M. sanguineus or even of 

 the Suakim form whicli I believe to be closely allied to it. 

 E-iippell gives figures of skulls of M. sanguineus and gracilis, 

 and at first sight the emargination of the lambdoid crest 

 (which he particularly notices in the letterpress) and the almost 

 complete absence of a postorbital constriction in the former 

 seem to point to a fundamental difference in skull-shape 

 between the two forms. An examination of the long series 

 of skulls in the Natural History Museum shows, however, 

 that in this group both these characters merely indi- 

 cate immaturity. I think I am justified in concluding that 

 M. sanguineus and gracilis cannot be specifically separated ; 

 and as M. sanguineus is the earlier name that form must be 

 accepted as the typical one of this group, which extends 

 through the length and breadth of Africa, with no variation 

 other than of size and colour. 



I follow Riippell in describing M. sanguineus as '' reddish 

 Isabella colour, grizzled with chestnut and with a rust- 

 red tail-ti])." liiippeH's dimensions are based on a quite 

 young individual, and I offer the following (based on adult 

 M. gracilis and the Suakim specimen) as probably those of a 

 normal specimen : — 



Head and body 300 mm.; tail 325; hind foot 58. 



Hah. Type locality Kordofan. 



(?) 6. 10. 2. 9. Erkowit, Suakim {Mr. A. L. Butler). 



10. Mungos sanguineus gracilis, Rilpp. 



1835. lierpestes gracilis, Riippell, N. Wirb. Abyss, p. 29. 



1847. Herpestes Galinieri, Gut5rin & Ferret, Galiuier, Voy. Abyss. Atlas, 



Zool. pi. i. 

 1850. Herpestes Lefehvrei, Desmurs & Provost, Lefebvre Voy. Abyss. 



Atlas, Zool. pi. i.* 

 1855. Herpestes ochromelas, Pucheran, Rev. Zool. vii. p. 393. 

 1861. Herj)estes iodoprymnus, Heuglin, Nov. Act. Ac. Leop. xxix. 



p. 63. 

 1861. Herpestes adailensis, Heuglin, Peterm. Geog. Mitth. p. 17. 



Riippell describes the colour of his type as " cinereo 

 ilavicans " and " gelb grau," but I think the term " pinkish 

 drab '^ used in my key gives a much better idea both of a 

 cotype in the collection and of the animal represented in 

 Riippell's plate. Riippell's description is evidently based on 

 a young individual and the cotype mentioned above is also 



* This is the uame given in the index to the Atlas, but at the foot of 

 the plate itself is printed " Herpestes gracilis^ 



