LUTEA. 203 



I have examined this fragment, and the short truncated palate and the relatively 

 large molars enahled me, without reference to Swinhoe's description, to assign it 

 unhesitatingly to the sub-genus Aonyx. Dr. Gray first referred this animal to his 

 second section Sydrogale,^ and afterwards in his Catalogue^ to Lutrogale, under 

 which sub-generic name the fragment stands in the National Collection. 



I propose now to indicate briefly the Southern Asiatic species of Otter. 



The different species of Southern Asiatic Otters are very imperfectly known, 

 and great confusion has arisen from the misapplication of the native names. 



Marsden in his great work on Sumatra' figures two Otters from that island. 

 The first* is a strongly clawed species, which, judging from the figure, appears to 

 have had a haired nose, but there is no allusion in the text to this character. The 

 taU is proportionally longer than in the common Otter of India, and the animal is 

 referred to Mustela Ultra. The second figure'^ represents a smaller animal with a 

 relatively shorter taO. than the previous one, a naked nose, and small claws. The 

 native term Anjing Ayer, " water dog," is applied to both of these animals. 



Rafiies'' also mentions two species of Otter from Sumatra known by the com- 

 mon appellation of Anjing Ayer. The larger he distiaguished under the name of 

 Simimg, and the smaller by that of JBarang-Barang, or Amharang. The latter, 

 according to Raffles, appeared to be nearly allied to Lutra lutreola, being almost a 

 foot and a half in length and of a glossy, brown colour, and white on the mouth 

 and throat. The feet he described as being covered with hair and the toes as of 

 unequal length, but he makes no mention of the character of the claws in either 

 of the species. The tail is stated to be shorter than the body and covered with hair, 

 thick at the base and tapering to a point. The type of the Simtmg of Rafiies stiU. 

 exists in the India Museum, London, but the skin is not in a good state of preservation, 

 so that the result of a comparison of it with some of the other species is not 

 very satisfactory. On certain points of structure, however, it is an important 

 record, for its extremities, which are perfect, prove that it is a long-clawed Otter like 

 Z. nair, P. Ouvier, from which it does not differ in any of the details of the struc- 

 ture of its feet, and, like that species, its nose is bald, and the tail holds the same 

 proportion to the body as in that form, which it also resembles in its colouring. 



As no specimens of the Otter of Sumatra named Barang by Raffles exist either 

 in the British Museum or in the India Museum as donations from that distin- 

 guished man, his pubhshed description is the only guide to the characters of the 

 animal, but, as already indicated, it is too vague to be satisfactory. The 

 majority of naturalists, however, have regarded the Barang of Raffles as the small- 

 clawed Otter figured by Marsden, and, I think, in all HkeHhood, that this view of 

 the question is correct, but Cantor applied the term Barang to an entirely different 

 animal. 



' p. Z. S., 1867, p. 182. ■• L. c, pi. xi. No. 1. 



2 Cat. Camiv. Mamm. &o. B. M. 1869, p. 105 ; ^ L. c. pi. xi. No. 2. 



and Proc. Zool. Soo. 1870, pp. 624 & 625. « Ti-ans. Linn. Soo. Lond. 1822, vol. xiii. p. 254. 

 2 Hist, of Sumatra, 3rd ed. 1811. 



