MAMMALIA INSECTIVORA. 
29 
I have next to remark, that the E. heterodactylus, Sund., is identical 
with mjE. pruneri; the posterior thumb is wanting in both. I supposed 
this defect in E. pruneri and alhiventris, to be occasioned by an injury, 
and therefore omitted it in my description; but since Sundevall has 
found the same, I do not hesitate to state the want of the thumb, on the 
hinder foot, as a very important diagnostic mark for my E. pruneri and 
alhiventris. The E. cethiopicus, Ehr., perhaps identical with my E. 
brachydactylus, cannot be separated from the group to which E. auritus 
belongs ; the bristles are also in this one quite soft. E. platyotis, Sund., 
with the diagnosis, — “ dense albido-pilosus, auriculis maximis, pollice 
postico brevissimo,” — would seem also to belong to my E. hrachydacty- 
lus, were there not too great a difference in the length of the bristles. 
In the E. hrachydactylus they are as long as the ears, or even more so ; 
in the E. platyotis, on the other hand, Sundevall gives the ears 26-29 
millimetres, while the bristles of the back are only 18-19 millimetres. 
His two specimens came from Egypt. E. cegypticus, Geoffr., Sundevall 
places with the E. lihyms, Ehrenb., and gives as diagnosis, — “ dense 
moUiter albido-pilosus auriculis longit. 1-3 capitis, pollice postico brevi 
perfecto.” The distinction between it and the former species does not 
appear to be satisfactory. Certainly Sundevall says of E. platyotis , — 
“ simillimus priori {E. aurito) et sequenti {E. cegypt.), sed ab utroque 
differt proportioni digitorum et ab E. cegyptiaco magnitudine auricu- 
larum.” However, I must remark, that in these short-toed animals a 
difference in length in the toes is at least difficult to detect, and the 
length of the ears may be modified in consequence of the preparation. 
Both these species should be more strictly defined, and the constitution 
of the bristles expressly detailed, according to the mode I have shown. 
It is very doubtful to which of the three Egyptian species {E. hrachy- 
dactylus, platyotis, and lihycus) the E. cegypticus, Geoffroy, belongs. 
In the Catal. des Mammif. Geoffroy says, — “ oreilles tres alongees,” 
which does not exactly agree with Sundevall’s E. cegypticus. I have 
referred it to my E. hrachydactylus. 
Duvernoy and Lereboullet (Mem. de Strasb. iii. p. 4), have described 
a stuffed specimen of Erinaceus algirus from Oran, with this diagnosis : 
“ E. auriculis subarcuatis digitis et unguibus mediocribus ; toto corpore 
subtus pilis confertissimis, moUibus, magnopere albis vestito 6" long. 
It belongs to my second division of the Hedgehogs, and must be a variety 
of the E. hrachydactylus or cegypticus. In order, however, to be cer- 
tain of this, the length of the ears and bristles, and particularly the outer 
and inner structure of the latter, must be specified. It is interesting to 
know, that the Hedgehog is found at Algiers ; whilst, on the other hand, 
Siebold asserts, that it was introduced into Japan from China. 
We have yet to register the “ SmybolaB ad Erinacei Europasi anato- 
men, diss. inaug. quam conscripsit Seubert;” Bonn, 1841, principally 
73 
