1878.] J. Anderson — On the Suh-Qenus Xesokia. 217 



General Hardwicke who afterwards, in presenting to the British Museum 

 the type of Gray's Mus (Nesohia) hardwickii, presented a rat agreeing 

 with the figure of Arvicola indica. The type of Mus indicus with which 

 Gray believed his Arvicola indica to be specifically identical was from 

 Pondicherry, and as has already been stated, it is a time rat allied to M. 

 decumanus, and perfectly distinct from the animal figured under the name 

 of A. indica, but, moreover, no rat has been obtained at Pondicherry at 

 all corresponding specifically to the Mus (Nesohia) liardwickii with which 

 the figure of Arvicola indica agrees. 



The specimens of Mus providens in the Calcutta Museum are distin- 

 guished from Mus (Nesohia) hardwichii by their much narrower incisors, 

 smaller molars, and by a long but narrow anterior palatine foramen, an 

 opening which is very short in Mus (Nesohia) hardwichii, as is seen in 

 Peters' characteristic figure of the so-called Spalacomys indicus,^ but the 

 form of the skull is the same, both differing in the same respects from 

 Mus. I have had the Madras rat alivef and have observed that it has the 

 deep and rather short muzzle of Nesohia, with incisors broader than those 

 of ordinary rats, and with the molars, when worn down, having the general 

 characters of Nesohia. These rats, coming as they do from Southern 

 India, agree externally with the types of M. providens, and have similar 

 short Nesohian skulls. 



In Lower Bengal, there is a burrowing rat, a great pest in gardens, 

 in which it constructs numerous tortuous passages, some comparatively 

 superficial, and others at times very deep, and throws up heaps resem- 

 bling mole hills. It is closely allied to 3Ius providens, but differs from it 

 in its somewhat greater size, and in other slight details, afterwards to be 

 noticed. This is the rat which Blyth incorrectly identified with Mus 

 indicus, Geoff., and with which he also wrongly identified Arvicola indica, 

 Mus huttoni, Blyth, M. rattoides, Hodgson, Mus pyctoris, Hodgson, and 

 Mus dulius, Kelaart, but which is perfectly distinct from Mus (Nesohia) 

 hardwickii which also differs from M. huttoni. It appears probable that 

 this is the rat also figured in the 111. Ind. Zool. Vol. II, pi. 21, under tlie 

 name of Arvicola hengalensis, but which was never described. This being 

 the case, the Bengal form must be named, whilst Mus (N) hardwichii will 

 stand for the rat originally described as Arvicola indica, and afterwards as 

 Nesohia hardwichii ; the original of the figure of A. indica being probably 

 the type itself of Mus hardioichii, whereas M. (N) providens will stand for 

 the Southern form first described by Gray under the barbarous name of M. 

 hoh. In the Indian Museum, there are many rats in alcohol from Fateh- 



* Abhand. der K. Akad. Wissensch. zu Berlin, 1840, p. 143, Taf. II, fig. I. 

 t I may take the opportunity to record here that males and females of this rat 

 escaped from confinement in the Calcutta Mubeum. 



