528 MR. o. THOMAS ON THE [May 3, 



appear to be constant, as a specimen from tlie Neilgherries has dis- 

 tinctly larger ears for its size than any specimen of N. bengalensis that I 

 have seen. As to the skull-characters mentioned, I can only suppose 

 Dr. Anderson had but a small series under examination at the time of 

 writing his paper ; for, as far as I can see, the skulls intergrade com- 

 pletely. Taking the characters as given above, we see that the 

 southern race is certainly a little smaller, but not very much; in fact 

 two Madras specimens of ours are quite as large as average Bengal 

 ones. I cannot see that there is any difference in the outward spread of 

 the zygomatic arches, or in the size of the teeth. As to the anterior 

 palatine foramina, it is true that many specimens of var. bengalensis 

 have these very much broader ; but, on the other hand, some of our 

 Nepal specimens, necessarily of the northern form, have them fully 

 as much contracted as any Madras individuals ; we cannot, therefore, 

 place any reliance on this character. The other characters inciden- 

 tally mentioned seem all to be either variable or not sufficient to 

 separate the two forms upon. 



With regard to the name adopted for the species, I cannot agree 

 with Dr. Anderson that Gray's name bengalensis cannot stand. The 

 figure of "Arvicola bengalensis" represents the northern form without 

 a doubt ; and even if this name were discarded, it will be seen by the 

 synonymy that there are no less than four other names which would 

 have priority over that give by Dr. Anderson. Tbe types of all of 

 them are in the British Museum, and certainly belong to this species. 



M. (N.) barclayanus, Anders., as Mr. Blanford (/. c.) has sug- 

 gested, seems to be only a local variety of A'^. bengalensis, and not 

 distinct enough to require a name. 



Mus setifer, Horsf. apud Cantor ' (and therefore, fide Blyth, M. 

 andamanensis, Bl.-), is, judging from one of Cantor's own specimens, 

 certainly a Nesokia, and apparently not separable from this species. 

 I do not care, however, definitely to unite them until I have seen 

 spirit specimens from Pinang or the Andamans, as soine of the pro- 

 portions may be different from those of the Bengal species, Cantor's 

 specimen being a much stretched skin. 



3. Mus (Nesokia) bandicota. 



Le Ratperchal, Buff. Hist. Nat. Supp. vii. p. 276, pi. 69 (1/89). 



Bat perchul and Bandicota, Penn. Hist. Quadr. (ed. 3), ii. 

 pp. 179, 180(1793). 



" Ber Bandikote," et "die jndische Batte" Bechstein, AUgem. 

 Uebers. der vierfiissige Thiere^ ii. pp. 497, 498 (ex Penn.) (1800). 



Mus bandicota et 31. indicus (nee Geoff.), Bechstein, tom. cit. 

 pp. 713, 714 (1800). 



M. malabaricus et M. perchal, Shaw, Gen. Zool. ii. pt. 1, pp. 54,- 

 5.5 (1801). 



M. giganteus, Hardw. Trans. Linn. See. vii. p. 306, pi. 18 (1804). 



^ J. A. S. B. XV. p. 254, 1846. 



^ J. A. S. B. xxix. p. 103, 1860. 

 - ' A German traDslation of Pennant's ' History of Quadrupeds', published at 

 Weimar in two volumes, 4to, 1799-1800. 



