454 CLASS MAMMALIA. 



The open circles of black, with a central dot, form a 

 strong specific character. The marks, however, differ much 



F. macraurus of Prince Maximilian, mentioned and figured in this 

 work, a specimen of which the Major saw at M. Temminck's 

 house. This conjecture, it is true, seems strongly negatived by 

 Dr. Horsfield, who says, expressly, " no doubt remains as to 

 the identity of the subjects from which the description was made," 

 that is of M. Temminck's inedited species, and that of Doctor 

 Horsfield. 



Major Smith inclines, also, to think either that the specimens of 

 Sir Stamford Raffles and of Doctor Horsfield were small, or that 

 they belong to a small variety, if not a separate species from nebu- 

 losus. The latter, he says differs from the former in bulk, in colour, 

 and in the marks on the head, no account being given of the 

 zigzag between the eyes, which distinguished his specimen of 

 F. nebulosa, a peculiarity, we must observe, which is noticed in 

 Howitt's drawing, before-mentioned, but not in that made by Mr. 

 Landseer. In bulk, he was, it seems, full as large as the great 

 Jaguar, consequently, not quite equal to the Bengal Tiger. With 

 respect to the habitat, the F. nebulosa was said to have been 

 brought from Canton ; but it is true that an animal, said to have 

 come from China, may very well have, in fact, been brought from 

 Sumatra or Borneo, both being in the line of route of ships from 

 China homeward. 



The editor, presuming the identity of the species, and in defer- 

 ence both to Doctor Horsfield and M.Temminck, would most 

 willingly have cancelled the name of F. nebulosa, and have sub- 

 stituted for it that of F. macrocelis. Some slight uncertainty, how- 

 ever, still remaining, as to the identity of the species described in 

 the text, with that of Doctor Horsfield, particularly in reference to 

 colour, and of both with that of M. Temminck, there would, there- 

 fore, be an impropriety in doing it, were there no other objection. 



But should the identity of the three be clearly proved, it is obvious, 

 that though the first detailed description of it is due to Dr. Horsfield 

 and Sir Stamford Raffles, the first notice and liberal communication 

 of its figure to zoologists long before, both here and on the conti- 

 nent, is attributable to Major Smith. It would, therefore, be a slight, 

 and an injustice done to him, to cancel the name he had adopted, 

 and with it the memorial of his first knowledge and drawing of the 

 animal. 



The editor takes the present opportunity of observing, that no 

 small inconvenience presents itself in the progress of this work, in 



