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



B. Small, 2-4 inches. Last hind foot-pad cir- 

 cular. — Mice. 



c. Anterior edge of zygoma-root perpen 



dicular. 

 y. 10 mammfe. 

 /'. Tail as long as, or longer than, head 

 and body, 

 c". Colour rufous - brown, belly 



scarcely lighter; hind foot -eB-'T. 7. M. wriaWMS, p. 544. 

 d". Colour pale fulvous, belly white ; 



hind foot ■65-'75 8. M. bactrianus, p. 546. 



ff'. Tail shorter than head and body. 

 (See also under Leggada huduga, 

 p. 553.) 

 e". Hind foot •6--65 ; ear ^l-^Q ... 9. ilf. cervioolor, p. 547. 

 S. 6 mammse. 



h'. Tail as long as, or longer than, head 



and body; hind foot •82--88 10. M. arianus, p. 548. 



d. Anterior edge of zygoma-root slanting. 



(See Plate LI. fig. 8.) 



i'. Tail rather longer than the head 



and body; hind foot ^S-S 11. M. nitidulus, t^. 550. 



II. Hind feet with only 4 or 5 properly developed 

 foot-pads. 



e. 8 mammse ; tail about the length of head 



and body ; hind foot about I'0 12. M. metiada, p. 550. 



5. MUS DECUMANTJS. 



M. decumanus, Pall. Nov. Glir. p. 91 (1778). 

 M. decumanoides^, Hodgs. J. A.. S. B. x. p. 915 (sine descr.) (in 

 part) (1841). 



*M. brunneus, Hodgs. Ann. & Mag. N. H. xv. p. 266 (1845). 



Hab. Cosmopolitan. 



No description is needed of this too well-known rat. It may 

 always be distinguished from any specimen of M. alexandrimts by its 

 short tail and ears, and its larger size. The following are the chief 

 dimensions of a full-grown male: — Head and body 8'3, tail 7'\, 

 hind foot 1"6, ear-conch 0"7, muzzle to ear 1"85. 



The type o{ Mus brunneus, Hodgs., is certainly a specimen of this 

 species, as might be expected from his description. Though most 

 certainly not indigenous, Mr. Blanford tells me that these Rats are 

 found on all the rivers of India, being carried up by the boats, and 

 that by this means they might easily have got into the valley of 

 Nepal, by way of the rivers Gruuduck and Coosy. 



We now come to the truly indigenous Indian species of Mus. 

 The first one that claims our attention is the common house- and 

 tree-rat of the whole of India, the Mus rufescens, Gr., of Blyth and 

 other authors. After careful comparison of a very large number of 

 specimens from all parts of India, I have come to the conclusion that 



^ In Hovsfield's ' Catalogue of the Mammals in the India Museum ' (p. 140), 

 he meutions a " Mus dccumanoidcs, Temm." Temniinck never decribed a Eat 

 under this name, as far as I can find ; and Dr. Jentink, of the Lej-den Museum, 

 where Teinminck's types are preser> ed, has kindly confirmed my opinion on 

 this point. 



