10 THE ZOOLOGIST. 
The skull of a male Canis pallipes obtained during the travels 
of Messrs. Schlagintweit Bros., and now in our collection, is of the 
following dimensions :—Cranial length, 210 mm.; basilar length, 
181 mm.; width across the malar bones, 112 mm.; upper sectorial 
tooth, 21 mm.; both the upper tuberculated teeth, 24°3 mm.; 
and the lower sectorial tooth, 24°83mm. A skull of Canis pallipes 
mentioned by Prof. Huxley,* hasa sagital length of 215 mm.; the 
upper sectorial tooth measuring 21°5 mm., the lower one, 24°5 mm.; 
and both the upper tuberculated ones, 23 mm. It results from 
these comparisons that the skull in question of the Japanese Wolf 
is of about the same size as that of the Indian Wolf, the dentition 
only being stronger. As regards the shape of the teeth, I find 
many points of comparison with the Indian Wolf, only the shape 
of the bulle ossez is an anomalous one, for they are more pro- 
tuberant in the latter, while in the Japanese Wolf they appear to 
be smaller and flatter. In addition to this the Japanese Wolf has 
a remarkably flat and narrow frontal bone,t which in the Indian 
Wolf is distinctly vaulted and has a greater breadth. In general 
the skull of the Japanese Wolf has, in spite of many analogies with 
that of the Indian Wolf, more or less a peculiar stamp of its own, 
and I should be able to pick it out at once from forty other skulls 
of wolves which I am dealing with. 
Temminck, in his ‘ Fauna Japonica,’ states explicitly (p. 39) 
that the skull of the Japanese Wolf is smaller than that of the 
Kuropean Wolf, pointing out that he had a full-grown specimen 
in his possession, adding further that Siebold also possessed 
a very old individual of exactly similar dimensions. These 
statements agree precisely with the details afforded by the skull 
in question, and there is no reason to doubt them.{ That which 
discredited Temminck’s statement, and gave von Schrenck good 
reason to criticise, was the erroneous description of the “ avant- 
bras” or fore arm, called “ radius,” instead of “radius and ulna.” 
Properly speaking, there exists no species of the genus Canis in 
which the radius, measured by itself, exceeds the length of the 
* “Cranial and Dental Measurements of Wolves of the Old World,” 
Proe. Zool. Soc. London, 1880, p. 279. 
+ Whether this is the case with all the specimens will be a point for 
further observation. 
{ Icannot admit that the remarks on the subject by Prof. Brauns are 
sufficiently confirmed. 
