56 MR. 0. THOMAS ON THE MAMMALS OF [Jan. 19, 
6. Herpestes Griseus, Geoffr.' 
a—c. Sambhar, J, 3, and 4/78. 
a | 
. HEeRPEsTEs sMITHII, Gray. 
a. 6. Sambhar, 13/1/78. 
8. Hy2na striata, L. 
a. Sambhar, 17/1/78. 
9. CANIS PALLIPES, Sykes. 
a. Sambhar, 23/1/78. 
10. Canis aurzEvs, L. 
a. &. Jodhpur, 28/1/78. 6. ¢g. Nawa, Sambhar Lake, 
23/12/77. ¢. 2. Goodha, Sambhar, 26/12/77. d. Sambhar. 
11. VuLPES BENGALENSIS, Shaw. 
a. &.Sambhar, 17/1/78. 
12. Vures Leucopvs, Bly. 
a-c. d. and 2 9.Sambhar, 9 and 12/77. d. &. Jodhpur. 
26/1/78. 
13. Mextiivora 1npica, Bodd. 
a. 2. Sambhar, 14/1/78. 
14. Scrurus PALMARUM, L. 
a. 3. Sambhar. 
15. Nrsoxra BANDICOTA, Bechst. 
a. 3. Sambhar, 13/3/78. 
16. NEsOKIA HARDWICKEI, Gr. 
a-e.3 g.and 2 2. Sambhar, 6/77 and 1/78. 
1 There has been considerable diversity of opinion as to the name the 
common Indian Mungoose should bear, some authorities thinking the early 
name of Jiverra mungo (Gmelin, Linn. 8. N. i. p. 84, 1789) is applicable to it, 
and others that the /chnewmon griseus of Geoffroy (Descr. Egypte, Hist. Nat. ii. 
p- 138, 1812) includes an African as well as an Indian species, and is therefore 
not tenable. As to the first point, V. muwngo was based by Gmelin primarily on 
the “ Viverra ichnewmon B” of Schreber (Saug. iii. p. 430, pls. exvi. and cxyi. 
B). But the latter is made up of a conglomeration of different animals from 
yarious localities, the two plates representing, the first H. griseus and the 
second the South-African Crossarchus fasciatus (see P. Z. 8. 1882, p. 91). In 
addition Viverra mungo includes Herpestes persicus, Gay. (=H. awropunctatus, 
Hodg.) as Mr. Blanford has pointed out (Zool. Hast Persia, p. 42, 1876). In 
my opinion therefore the only rational method of treating Viverra mungo is 
simply to ignore it altogether. 
Passing to the second point, as to the applicability of Geoffroy’s Jchnewmon 
griseus to this species, I find that although Geoffroy quoted Buffon’s “ Nems” 
said to be Hast African, as identical with his animal, yet his description agrees 
in every respect with the Indian Mungoose, and he distinctly states that his 
species came from the “ Indes Orientales,” so that there is no valid reason why 
the time-honoured name of Herpestes griseus should be superseded. 
