1890.] MR. W. L. SCLATER ON SOME INDIAN MURID^. 525 



although there are in the Museum large collections of Rats and 

 Mice from Sikhim, there are no examples that can be referred to this 

 species. The only specimens in the Museum are the two originally 

 sent by Major Berdmore to Mr. Blyth from Burmah, of the skull of 

 which I send figures (Plate XLIV. fig. 1). 



11. Mus jEEDONi (Blyth) ; Thomas, P. Z. S. 1881, p. 537. 



This is a very distinct species of Eat ; it can be at once identified 

 by its tail, which is brown above and white below, and very long. 

 There are in the Museum examples of this species from Darjeeling 

 and from Cherra Punji in the Ehasi hills. 



12. Mus NivEivENTER, Hodgsou ; Thomas, P. Z. S. 1881, p. 540. 

 There are in the Museum two old stuffed specimens from Landour 



near Mussoorie, which were originally identified by Blyth with this 

 species ; he afterwards, however, in his Catalogue considered it to 

 be identical with Mus rufescens. An examination of the specimens 

 rather coufirms Blyth's second thought : the tails do not show any 

 sign of white below so characteristic of this species, and the dimen- 

 sions are large for Mus niveiventer. The skulls, however, are so 

 broken up that it is impossible to make anything of them. 



There are no other examples of this species in the Museum, and I 

 should be very grateful to any one who could procure specimens 

 for us. 



13. Mus BLAOTOEDi, Thomas, P. Z. S. 1881, p. 541, pi. 50. 



There is nothing to be added to Thomas's excellent description of 

 this distinctly marked species ; the Indian Museum has recently re- 

 ceived an example from the Shevaroy hiUs in the Madras Presidency, 

 collected by Mr. William Daly ; this adds another locality, as the 

 original specimen was found at Cudapah, also in the Madras 

 Presidency. 



, 14. Mus BEEDMOREi, Blyth ; Thomas, P. Z. S. 1886, p. 62. 



This species was first described by Blyth (J. A. S. B. xx. p. 173), 

 from a single flat skin and skull procured in Mergui ; he, however, 

 afterwards merged it with his 3Ius rohtistulus, which has since 

 been shown by Blanford and Thomas to be indistinguishable from 

 Mus rattus rufescens, the common Tree-Eat of the whole of India. 



Mr. Thomas has since (l.s.c.) applied Blyth's old name to a 

 peculiar Eat forming part of the Hume Munipur collection, which 

 Eat, according to Mr. Thomas, agrees so well with the original de- 

 scription of Mr. Blyth, that he has no hesitation in identifying the 

 two, and this notwithstanding the fact that Blyth's specimen was 

 from Mergui, which is a long way off, and has a very different 

 fauna from Munipur. 



The flat skin which is mentioned in Mr. Blyth's Catalogue of the 

 Mammals of the Asiatic Society's Museum has unfortunately dis- 

 appeared ; the skull, however, though not complete, is still in the 



