1888,] EaUATORIAL AFRICA. H 



26. Malacomys longipes, M.-Edw. 



a-d. c? & 3 $ . Tingasi, 7 and 9/83. 



(a) " Iride fusca. ' Nesanda.' In and by water." 



(6) " In the forest."— E. 

 This most interesting form was only previously known from a 

 single specimen from the Gaboon in the collection of the Paris 

 Museum, the skull of which has unfortunately been destroyed. An 

 examination of the skulls sent by Dr. Emin shows that Malacomys 

 has perfectly smooth incisors, and the molars of a typical Mus, and 

 is therefore only distinguished by its very different external pro- 

 portions. As a species M. longipes is characterized by its rounded 

 supraorbital edges, elongated muzzle, small teeth, and short palatine 

 foramina, the latter and the teeth being each only 6 millim. in 

 length, as compared to a basal length of 35-5, and a palate length 

 of 22 millim. 



27. Mus (ISOMYS) barbarus, L. 



a. c?. Stat. Gadda, 10/1/84. 



h-g. Tingasi, 7 to 9/83. 



h. 6 . Wadelai, 24/7/35. 

 " Iride fusca. Native name ' Nadje ' or ' Nage Nadje.' Found 

 along the edges of the forest." — E. 



No remark to this very common and widely spread species would 

 be needed were it not that the three authors whose papers have 

 been above referred to have all expressed different views as to its 

 nomenclature, and it is therefore advisable for me to explain my 

 reasons for the name I myself use. Thus Dr. Pagenstecher, although 

 only having two of the ordinary specimens for comparison, calls the 

 Masai form ''Mus {Lemniscomys) barbarus, var. massaicus " \ a form, 

 however, that I do not think distinct enough to merit a varietal 

 name, especially as the Emin series contains individuals precisely 

 agreeing both with ordinary "West-African specimens and with those 

 described by Dr. Pagenstecher. 



Dr. Leche ^ puts all under " Mus barbarus" and expresses his 

 opinion that the variety known as " pulchellus," Gray, is not really 

 distinct — a view with which I most fully agree, although I prefer to 

 recognize the subgenus " Isomys," with which at the same time I 

 think " Lemniscomys " should be amalgamated, the two grading 

 quite insensibly into each other. 



Finally Dr. Noack^ uses Dr. Gray's obsolete name of " Golunda 

 pulchella " for the species, being apparently unaware either of its 

 position in the subgenus Isomys, or of the fact that the generic 

 name Golunda belongs properly to a very different animal, for which 

 in its turn * he uses Peters's name of Pelomys, although the latter's 

 identity with Golunda was shown by Mr. Blanford as long ago as 

 1876=. 



' r. c. p. 45. " T. c. p. 235. 



" T. c. p. 119. ° J. A. S. B. xlv. part ii. p. 165. 



' T. c. p. 239. 



