1907.] BECENTLY IN THE SOCIETY'S GARDENS. 663 



in the British Museum, and proves the correctness of Dr. Sclater's 

 determination of the species as a Cat related to F. served but 

 closely speckled (P. Z. S. 1874, p. 495, pi. Ixiii.). Dr. Elliot 

 indeed, and following him Mr. Lydekker, gives F. servalina as a 

 synonym of F. served*. 



I cannot ascertain with certainty where this form, even if it be 

 regarded merely as a subspecies, is placed in Trouessart's Catalogue 

 of Mannnalia. I can only surmise that it is dismissed as a synonym 

 of Felis gedeo2Xtrelus of Desmarest, with which, presumably on 

 Matschie's authority, F. senegedensis Lesson is identified. If this 

 be so a double error is involved, for F. servalinet Ogilby is not 

 identical either with F. gedeopeirehts or with F. senegedensis, and 

 F. senegedensis, judging from the figure, is difterent from 

 F. galeopeirehbs. 



The descriptions and figures both of F. gedeopeirehts and 

 F. senegedensis leave no doubt that these two resemble the typical 

 Serval in that the pattern on the neck, and at least the fore part 

 of the back, consists of definite and tolerably widely separated 

 longitudinal stripes. This is not the case in F. servedinet. 

 F. gedeopeirehts and F. senegedensis are further discussed (p. 667) 

 under the heading F. served. 



The exact systematic status of F. servedmei is a question about 

 which the opinions of authors are divided and undecided. In 

 every particular but pattern, that is to say in general form, length 

 and slendeiness of limb, length of tail, size of ears, and form of 

 skull, it resembles F. serval. Even in pattern the difference is 

 rather one of degi'ee than of kind. It is quite easy to imagine 

 the transition from F. served to F. serveiUnei, by the breaking up 

 of the cervical, scapular, and spinnl stripes and of the larger spots 

 on the body in F. served into a countless multitude of small close- 

 set spots showing obscure indication of serial ai-rangement usually 

 only on the spinal and cervical areas. The diiferences might well 

 be regarded merely as of subspecific importance or perhaps as 

 indicative of variation comparable, as Sir H. Johnston has 

 remarked t, to that of the speckled leopard-skins recorded by 

 Dr. Giinther from Grahamstown in S. Africa (see infrei, p. 676). 



The available evidence, however, seems to me to be in favour of 

 regarding F. servedinei as a valid species. In the first place, there 

 are, so far as I am aware, no skins show^ing a complete seiies of 

 gradations between this form and the typical Serval J. This 

 is opposed to the conclusion that the two are geographical 

 races of the same species. In the second place, the distribution of 



* It seems singular that Mivart when preparing his monograph of the Cats did 

 not take the trouble to look up the type of servalina to settle the status of this form, 

 but, after comparing the species with ' neglecta,' dismissed it with the words " the 

 type is said to be in the British Museum." (The Cat, p. 408, 1881.) 



t ' The Uganda Protectorate,' i. p. 3G7, 1902. 



X Sir H. Johnston (' Uganda Protectorate,' i, p. 366) says : " It is not very uncommon 

 to see skins which are intermediate in markings between the extremely small and 

 numerous spots of the Servaline and the bold black patches and stripes of the common 

 Serval." The meaning of the term ' intermediate ' is sufficiently lacking in precision 



