1907.] RECENTLY IN THE SOCIETY'S GARDENS. 657 



By a curious chain of circumstances F. celidogaster and F. chah/- 

 heata had the same type specimen, and are therefore in the strictest 

 possible sense synonyms. Smith gave the name chcdyheata to a 

 skin in Bullock's Museum, Avhich he believed went afterwards to 

 Germany. Temminck, as he himself says, bought the skin from 

 that Museum, without knowing apparently that Smith had 

 already comjailed a description of it. 



Although the name employed by Smith was published in the 

 same year as the three names employed by Temminck, it has never 

 met with acceptance, probably because of its previous use in a 

 different sense in the genus Fells by Hermann. 



The specimen named F. neglecta by Gray is not distinguishable 

 from F. celidogaster as described by Temminck, as Dr. Elliot has 

 shown ; and the description of F. rutila Waterh. might, from its 

 wording, have been taken fi'om the type of F. aurata. 



Thus of the six names published between 1827 and 1842 two 

 only have to be considered as connoting distinguishable forms, 

 namely aurata {plirysothrix) and celidogaster . The former was 

 given to a " red" and the latter to a " grey " West African 

 Tiger-Cat. 



Up to the present time there has been considerable divergence 

 of opinion as to the value to be assigned to these two " forms." 

 Dr. Elliot * and Pousargues t regarded them merely as colour- 

 phases without geographical significance. Dr. Matschie J, on the 

 other hand, gave them full specific value. The latest writer on 

 the subject, Mr. Lydekker §, adopted a third course. While 

 agreeing with Dr. Elliot and Pousargues that only one species is 

 concerned, he believed, with Dr. Matschie, that the aljove-mentioned 

 "forms" occur in definite localities, He gave them, however, 

 subspecific rank, resuscitated " rutila " as a third subspecies and 

 added a fourth, cottoni, which was desci"ibed as new. 



His conckxsions may be briefly summarised as follows : — 



1. F. chrysothrix rutila. Red form. Gambia and Cameroons. 



2. F. c. typica ||. Brown form. Lower Guinea. 



3. F. c. celidogaster. Grey form. Upper Guinea ; (?) Gambia. 



4. F. c. cottoni. Dusky form. Ituri forest. 



It can, however, I think be shown that the conclusion respecting 

 the local disti-ibution of the colour-types is untenable. 



This opinion is supported by the following facts. Although 

 the locality of the type of F. aurata ( = chrysothrix) was unrecorded, 

 the type of F. rutila came from the Mandingo country inland of 

 Sierra Leone. The locality of the type of F. celidogaster was also 

 luiknown, but Temminck subsequently obtained a skin he 

 identified as F. celidogaster from Ashanti ^ ; and under the name 



* Mon. Felidffi, pi. xxv. (1883). f Ann. Sci. Nat. (8) iii. p. 322 (1896). 



+ Mitth. deutsch. Scliutz. vi. pt. 3, p. 10 (1893) ; SB. Ges. Nat. Fr. Berlin, 1895. 

 p. 196. 



§ P. Z. S. 1906, pp. 992-995. These authors use the name chrt/sotlunx. 

 jl Temminck, however, described this as " roux-bai tres vif." 

 T[ Esquisse Zool. Guine, pp. 86-88 (1858;. 



44* 



