pr4s3. 
XIII. On the Osteology and Dentition of Hylomys. By Joun AnpeErson, M.D., Curator 
of the Indian Museum, and Professor of Comparative Anatomy in the Medical 
College, Calcutta. 
Read June 4th, 1872. 
[Piate LXIV.] 
THIS most interesting form, originally described by S. Miiller and Schlegel’ from two 
individuals, one from the island of Sumatra and the other from Java, was afterwards 
discovered by Blyth? in a collection of Mammals forwarded to him by Major Berdmore, 
from Shuay Gyeen, in the valley of the Sitang, in the Tenasserim Provinces. Blyth 
writes of the specimens (which were two in number, an adult male and female) that 
“they so nearly resembled the H. swillus of the Archipelago, figured and described by 
Dr. S. Miiller, that I should have considered them identical were it not for the greater 
development of the tail.” Having, however, removed the skull of one of Blyth’s spe- 
cimens, and finding it agree with the figure of the skull of H. suillus, S. Miiller and 
Schlegel, I am inclined to regard them as of one species, although at the same time I 
propose to retain Blyth’s term until the question can be determined by the comparison 
of Peguan with Sumatran specimens. 
Dr. Gray*, in describing the genus Ptilocercus, which seems to be closely allied to 
Tupaia, incidentally mentions Hylomys, and states that the geographical range of the 
Tupaiine appears to be confined to the Asiatic islands, and that Borneo may be regarded 
as their more proper home, as possessing all the genera, viz. Tupaia, Hylomys, and Ptilo- 
cercus ; but he does not mention his authority for extending the distribution of Hylomys 
to this island. Now, however, it has been ascertained that Twpaia and Hylomys occur 
in Java, Sumatra, and Pegu, and that they are associated in these two islands and in the 
Malayan peninsula with Gymnura. The next notice of Hylomys that I am aware of is 
by Wagner‘, who, however, added nothing to what had been already recorded about the 
characters of the genus. Mivart, in 1867, in his most valuable review of the osteology 
and dentition of the Insectivora‘, reproduced all that was known regarding these points 
1 Verhand. over. d. Nat. Gesch. d. Nederl. Mamm. 1843, pp. 153-158, pl. xxvi. fig. 1, pl. xxv. figs. 4-7, 
skull. 
? Journ. As, Soc. Bengal, vol. xxviii. 1859, p. 294; ibid. p. 286. 
? Proc. Zool. Soc. Lond. 1848, p. 23. 
“ Schreber’s Siiugeth. Suppl. ii. 1841, p. 554; ibid. Suppl. v. p. 855, pp. 529, 530, tab. 36. 
5 Journ. Anat. & Phys. vol. i. pp. 301, 302, 
VOL. VIII.—PaRT vill. April, 1874. 38 
