1890.] MR. W. L. SCLATER ON SOME INDIAN MURID^. 529 



21. Mus CERVicoLOR, Hodgs. ; Thomas, P. Z. S. 1881, p. 547. 



There does not seem to be any true distinction between this 

 species and Mas {Ler/gada) hiuluga. Thomas allows that they are 

 nearly allied, but asserts that they can be distinguished by the 

 length of their ears ; this distinction, however, does not seem to hold 

 good when the measurements of many individuals are taken. Mus 

 cunicularis of Blyth, as is suggested by Thomas, seems to be in every 

 way identical with Mus cervicolor. 



The specimens procured by Blyth from near Calcutta mentioned 

 by Thomas seem to be better placed under Mas {Leggada) huduga 

 than under this species, since they are particularly short-eared, and 

 some of them show distinct traces of the extra anterior cusp to the 

 molar, which is the distinctive, though by no means constant, mark 

 of the genus Leggada. 



22. Mus NiTiDULxrs, Blyth; Thomas, P. Z. S. 1881, p. 550. 



The type of this species, which should be in the Indian Museum, 

 is nowhere to be found ; it was, perhaps, lost during the trans- 

 ference of the Asiatic Society's collections to the present Museum. 

 It is therefore impossible to be certain whether Thomas's identilica- 

 tion of this species is correct or not. 



There is in the Indian Museum a collection of mice from Dar- 

 jeeling presented by Dr. G. King, and another single specimen from 

 the Khasia Hills, which seem to resemble in certain particulars 

 Mus nitididus of Thomas. In these the fur is long, and in some of 

 the specimens spiny ; the tail, which varies somewhat in length, 

 is bicolorous, brown above and white below ; but the anterior 

 edge of the outer wall of the infraorbital foramen is not slanting, 

 except perhaps slightly so in one specimen from the Khasia Hills ; 

 and the hind foot does not seem to be longer than the 

 distance from the muzzle to the ear. Until, however, authenti- 

 cated specimens of Thomas's Darjeeling species can be examined, 

 our specimens may remain as Mus nitididus, since there is certainly 

 no other species hitherto described with which they can be 

 identified. 



23. Mus HuMEi, Thomas, P. Z. S. 1886, p. 63, pi. v. 



This species was described by Thomas from specimens procured 

 by Mr. Hume in Munipur ; it appears to be allied to Mus eryihrotis, 

 from which it differs in being considerably larger. There are no 

 specimens of it in the Indian Museum, 



24. Mus ERTXHROTis, Blyth, J. A. S. B. xxiv. p. 721. 



The type of this species, of which, unfortunately, the skull 

 appears to have been mislaid, seems to be immature ; there is, how- 

 ever, in the Museum another specimen from the same locality, 

 Cherra Punji, which agrees with the type in every way except that 

 it is slightly larger. 



