1881.] 



INDIAN SPECIES OF MTS. 



Table of Measurements. 



535 



These varieties seem to grade insensibly into one another. The 

 Rats of Cashmere and the neighbouring region agree perfectly with 

 Egyptian specimens of M. alexandrinus^ ; then, proceeding south- 

 wards, we find their fur becoming rather coarser and more rufous, 

 and the animals themselves becoming smaller, though presenting 

 still much the same proportions. On the other hand, as we go from 

 Cashmere to Nepal, we find every intermediate stage between the 

 true M. alexandrinus and the fine-haired, comparatively short-tailed 

 var. nitidus'. We must therefore consider them all to be of but one 

 species, especially as we often find specimens which, without a 

 knowledge of locality, it would be quite impossible to assign with 

 certainty to any one of these three different forms. 



"With regard to the name adopted for the South-Indian variety, 

 Mr. Blanford has kindly examined for me the types of Mus indicus, 

 Geoffr., in the Paris Museum, and tells me that they are most cer- 

 tainly specimens of the Rat generally known as M. rufescens, Gr. ; 

 and as their locality (Pondicherry) is a place where M. rufescens 

 would naturally be found, I think there can be no doubt whatever as 

 to the correctness of Mr. Blanford's opinion. As, however, the 

 name M. indicus has been previously used by Bechstein, the later 

 name M. rufescens must still stand for the Common Rat of the 

 peninsula of India. The types of both M. indicus and M. rufescens 

 have been much stretched, so as to have given rise to the erroneous 

 statement in each case " Tail shorter than the head and body." 



I have not space to discuss the various synonyms given above ; but 

 it will be seen that we have the types of a great number of these so- 

 called species ; and those of Hodgson's names to which I have not 

 prefixed an asterisk merely represent forms of which we really pos- 

 sess the typical specimens among our series, but, as they are not 

 specially marked as such, I am unable to lay my hand upon them. 



^ In Dr. Scully's most useful paper "On the Mammals of Gilgit" (P. Z. S. 

 1881, p. 204), we fmd the following: — "The Gilgit Eat is not separable from 

 the so-called M. riifescens of Calcutta, or M. rohustus, BIyth, of Burma ; and it 

 also agrees in all essential characters with M. alcxandrvmis, Geoff. A specimen 

 of M. alexandrinus from Algeria, in the British Museum, only differs from one 

 of my Gilgit specimens in having rather harsher fur." 



^ The tj'pical M. rufescens is also found in Nepal, there being a considerable 

 scries of this form from that country sent by Dr. Anderson. 



