202 J. Anderson — On tJic Indian Species [No. 4, 



Blyth, in 1846,* in treating of the hedgehogs collected by Hutton near 

 the Sutlej, pointed out that the third specimen described by Hutton, f with 

 some doubt, under the name o£ E. collaris, Gray, was apparently distinct 

 from that species. Blyth was disposed to regard it as identical with a 

 hedgehog in the Asiatic Society's Museum, the locality of which he then 

 stated was unknown, but which he afterwards considered^ to have been 

 received from the Nilgiris from Mr. Smoult and to be the specimen men- 

 tioned by Pearson as U. auritus. This latter specimen Blyth regarded as 

 specifically identical with hedgehogs sent him from Southern India by Sir 

 Walter Elliot, and with the hedgehog from Southern India in the British 

 Museum grouped by Gray under JE. collaris. He compared the skull of an 

 adult specimen sent from Southern India by Sir "Walter Elliot with the 

 skull of Mr. Smoult' s hedgehog and found them exactly to correspond, and 

 these specimens he named E. mic7'opus, the last mentioned being the type 

 of the species. The skull, however, of Capt. Hutton' s third specimen he 

 goes on to remark " presents some differences ; the general form is rather 

 shorter and broader, it is more constricted between the orbits and the zygo- 

 mse are considerably more projecting ; the small upper premolar anterior 

 to the incisor teeth is less minute ; and in the lower jaw, the second lateral 

 pair of incisors from the front are much smaller, as indeed are also the 

 next or last pair of the true incisors." From the description of this speci- 

 men which was obtained by Hutton§ in the neighbourhood of Shah Farid 

 on the left bank of the Sutlej, and from the details regarding the points 

 wherein its skull differs from the skull of the Southern Indian hedgehog, I 

 am disposed to consider, that Hutton's third specimen was an example of 

 E. pieties. In 1853 II Blyth was still doubtful regarding the specific iden- 

 tity of Hutton's third specimen with E. micropus. 



The next species, the cranial characters of which had been so well 

 indicated by Blyth in 1846 and which entitle it to recognition, was de- 

 scribed in 1872 by Stoliczka as E. pictus, but no reference was made 

 to Blyth's observations, nor to the cranial and dental features of the 

 animal. The characters selected by Dr. Stoliczka were exclusively exter- 

 nal, and were derived from supposed differences existing between its 

 spines and those of E. onicropus, but after a very careful consideration of a 

 large series of spines of both forms under the microscope, it appears to me 

 that much importance cannot be attached to these structures as guides to 

 species. 



* Joum. As. Soc. Bengal, Vol. XV, p. 170; op. cit., Vol. V, 1836, p. 191. 



t op. cit., Vol. XIV, p. 351. 



X op. cit., Vol. XXII, 1853, p. 582. 



§ op. cit., Vol. XIV, p. 351. 



II op. cit. Vol. XXII, 1853, p. 582. 



I 



