634 MR. W. T. BLANFORD ON THE FAUNA OF TIBET. [June 20, 



Lagomys ladacensis ( = L. cur- 1 Lagomys curzonice (? = L. tibe- 



zonice, Stol. nee Hodgs.). W. tanus). E. 



Lagomys auritus. W. 



Ungulata. 



Equus hemionus. Ovis nahura. 



Bos grunniens. Capra sibirica. 



Ovis hodgsoni. Panthalops kodgsoni. 



Ovis vignei. W. Gazella picticauda. 



It is possible that Budorcas tcucicolor, the Musk-deer, and Cervus 

 affinis should be added; but I have grave doubts as to whether any 

 of these are really found on the Tibetan plateau. Budorcas may, 

 like Nemorluedus and Hemitragus, be Himalayan, whilst I suspect 

 that the Musk-deer and Cervus affinis belong to the Boreal or Palse- 

 arctic types of the Himalayan alpine fauna already referred to. I 

 feel also very doubtful whether Lagomys curzonice is the species 

 found in the Tibetan valleys north of Sikkim. The Chumbi valley, 

 whence Lagomys curzonice and Cervus affinis are said to have been 

 procured, belongs politically to Tibet, but it is Cis-Himalayan. 



I should point out that this slight correction in no way invalidates 

 any of Herr v. Pelzeln's views. There are a few errors in matters 

 of detail, such as the inclusion of Gazella, Antilope, and Mellivora 

 in the list of Malay genera, on the ground, apparently, of their sup- 

 posed occurrence in Nipal. This must, I think, be due to the 

 British-Museum catalogues of Mr. Hodgson's collections, in which a 

 considerable number of animals are included, obtained from other 

 parts of India than Nipal, although there is no means afforded by 

 the catalogue of distinguishing them from the species collected in 

 the Himalayas. 



In conclusion I can only call attention to the very interesting 

 palseontological suggestions at the end of Herr v. Pelzeln's papers. 

 He considers the Malay fauna to be allied to that which inhabited 

 Europe in older Miocene times, while he associates the newer 

 Miocene mammalian fauna of Europe and India with that inhabiting 

 the Ethiopian region at the present day. I can only remark upon 

 this that several of the early Miocene forms of Europe (e. g. Erina- 

 ceus, Castor, Myoxus, Cricetodon, Hyomoschus, Antilope) are not 

 Malay forms at present, and that the last two are African, whilst part 

 of the apparent similarity is perhaps due to the warm climate of the 

 early Miocene epoch in Europe — and that the Indian Sevaliks are 

 much more probably Pliocene than Miocene. It is, however, very 

 unfair to dismiss a carefully reasoned argument with a criticism of 

 this kind ; and I only regret that, just at present, time will not allow 

 me to do justice to Herr v. Pelzeln's views. 



