C)30 MR. W. T. BLANFORD ON THE [DeC. 6, 



Spotted Cats ; no less than 6 specimens of F. rubiginosa, all but one 

 of which are from Ceylon, and the remaining specimen from Nel- 

 lore in Southern India; and 42 skins of F. bengalensis and its allies. 

 In going throngh the latter, whilst I have been struck by the great 

 variety exhibited, I have been unable to trace a single character, 

 external or cranial, by which the various races can be distinguished. 

 There are doubtless several races, and except that I cannot see how 

 F.jerdoni is to be separated, even as a variety, from F. javanensis of 

 Horsfield, those accepted as kinds by Prof. Mivart are fairly recog- 

 nizable. There is perhaps one to be added, the true wagati of Sir 

 \V. Elliot, not the form that was (I believe erroneously) described 

 under that name by Dr. Gray. The variation in dimensions is not 

 nearly so great as in the Leopard, and that in the markings is less 

 than in the Ocelot. 



Accepting, then, the view that all the forms of Leo[)ard-cat are 

 varieties of one species, which, for reasons to be assigned presently, 

 must be called F. bengalensis, the next question for determination is 

 whether the Cat called F. jerdoni by Blyth is a distinct form, as it has 

 been considered by Blyth and Mivart, whether, as Jerdon suggested, 

 it is a small race of F. bengalensis, or whether, as stated by Mr. D. 

 G. Elliot, it is identical with a form of F. rubiginosa. F.jerdoni was 

 founded by Blyth upon three specimens, as he writes (P. Z. S. 1863, 

 p. 185): — " I first detected an adult male and a kitten of this species 

 in the Museum at Madras, and find that there is an adult specimen 

 also in the British Museum." There is now a second specimen in 

 the British Museum, obtained from the East India Museum and 

 XaheWsA. F. jerdoni \Q Mr. Blyth' s handwriting. On the stand of 

 the original specimen the name F. jerdoiii has also been written by 

 Mr. Blyth. The two specimens are precisely similar and that first 

 in the Museum may be taken as the type of the species. 



The markings of this specimen, as already mentioned, are scarcely 

 distinguishable from those of Horsfield's type of F. javanensis. In 

 both the characteristic points mentioned — the marks in the inter- 

 scapulary region, and the spots on the tail — the two skins agree with 

 F. bengalensis and not with F. rubiginosa. To comjjlete the evidence, 

 Mr. Thomas has had the skull of one of the skins oi F.jerdoni 

 extracted, and it proves to possess the anterior upper premolar and 

 imperfect orbit of F. bengalensis. I have, therefore, not the least 

 hesitation in assigning F. jerdoni as a variety to that species, and I 

 believe it to be identical with the form commonly known as F. java- 

 nensis. The locality of neither specimen of F.jerdoni in the National 

 Collection is known ; but, considering that so closely similar a form 

 has been described from Java, whilst there is no evidence as to the de- 

 rivation of the Madras Museum specimens, it is far from improbable 

 that Mr. Blyth was mistaken in his supposition, and that these skins 

 were really brought originally from Malacca or the neighbourhood. 



The next point for consideration is the oldest scientific name of 

 the Leopard-cat. Blyth, as already remarked, used in 1863' the 



1 Cat. Mam. A. S. p. 60 ; iu P. Z. S. 1863, p. 184, be calls this cat F. benga- 

 lensis, Desiuouliiis, probably a slip for Desmarest. 



