1881.] INDIAN SPECIES OF MUS. 545 



but I can find no difference of any importance between tbe Mice of 

 Darjiling and Katmandu and those of Southern India. Of course, 

 as might be expected, specimens from the hills have rather longer 

 and softer fur and darker coloration than those of the plains ; but 

 this is only a parallel case to that of Mus alexandrinus, which, as 

 shown above, becomes redder and coarser-haired the further south it 

 lives. 



With regard to the distinctness of M. urbanus from M. musculus, 

 Blyth said that " M. musculus has conspicuously larger ears, 

 much smaller eyes, broader paws, and the tail is one fourth shorter, 

 measuring 3 inches in musculus and 4 in urbanus. The fur, again, is 

 of very different texture." Now I am by no means so satisfied of 

 the distinction of these two forms as Blyth seems to have been. 

 M. urbanus, it is true, has on the average somewhat smaller ears ; but 

 the difference is extremely small, and the measurements intergrade 

 completely. The stated difference in the size of the eyes must have 

 come solely from the manner of preservation of the specimens com- 

 pared; probably Blyth's urbanus was fresh, while his musculus was 

 in spirit, which would quite account for the difference. As to the 

 lengths of the tail, 3 and 4 inches respectively, I can only say that 

 I have never seen a spirit-specimen of urbanus with the tail more 

 than 3"5 inches, the average being considerably less ; and many speci- 

 mens of musculus have it from 3'2 to 3'4 inches ; so that we see that, 

 as far as regards the more essential characters of the dimensions of 

 the members, the two forms cannot possibly be separated. However, 

 the fur in urbanus is always much shorter, and the colour much 

 paler than in musculus ; so that specimens can always be placed 

 without difficulty under one or other heading ; and therefore I pro- 

 visionally retain M. urbanus as a good species, its most marked dis- 

 tinctive characters being its fawn or reddish coloration and its short 

 crisp fur. 



I do not think it is necessary to discuss the names put as synonyms 

 in detail : the types of all of them except 31. ^y^/eW are in the British 

 Museum ; and I have not the smallest doubt in the case of any one 

 of these. The type of Mus ratna from Malacca is of quite the usual 

 character, and might almost have belonged to the same litter as that 

 of M. tnanei from Madras. 



With regard to M, iytleri, we have a specimen, also from the 

 Dehra Doon, which fairly answers to Blyth's description, and which 

 I assign to this species. It is the very palest specimen I have seen, 

 quite as pale as M. bactrianus ; but its belly is scarcely lighter than 

 its back, while that of M. bactrianus in pure white. Moreover we 

 have a similarly pale specimen from Calcutta. Dr. Anderson tells me 

 that the type of M. tytleri is not in the Calcutta Museum ; so that 

 we have only Blyth's description to go upon ; I think, however, 

 that I am correct in referring it to Mus urbanus, 



Mus sublimis, W. Blanf.', seems to be allied to this species ; but 

 without seeing specimens I cannot express any opinion as to its 



' Zool, Yarkand Exp., Marnm. p, ijl, 1879. 



