1861.] 
91 
Proceedings of the Asiatic Society. 
be justly termed “very harsh,” as Mr. Waterhouse stated upon the 
authority of Dr. J. E. Gray (Rodentia, p. 81). As compared with 
the specimens under examination, the figure referred to is too deeply 
rufescent, and the paws are too dark-coloured and also too slender. 
Length 15 or 16 in. to base of tail, the tail (vertebrae) about 2 in., 
or with hair 3 in. ; hind-foot from tarsal joint, 4 in. The general 
colouring approximates that of L. buficagdatus of Bengal and 
Upper India, but the fur is much longer, the piles being very 
straight, and having a greater admixture of black upon the upper- 
parts : the most conspicuous distinction consisting in the shortness 
of the ears in L. sinensis, then the fuller coat, and the shorter tail 
and limbs ; the tail being more or less blackish on its upper surface. 
Nape, with the inner portion of the exterior surface of the ear-conch, 
pale fulvous, rather largely tipped on the ear with black ; limbs 'also 
pale fulvescent ; the throat and lower-parts generally white, more or 
less fulvous-tinged, especially in front of the neck. Skull that of a 
trueLEi?us, as distinguished from Caprolagus ( J . A. S. XIV, 247), 
except that the supra-orbital process agrees with that of the latter in 
form. Extreme length of lower jaw with teeth, 2| in. (in a straight 
line) ; depth from coronoid, lg in. ; surface of crowns of upper grind- 
ers, ft in. 
The Chinese Pangolin is erroneously assigned to Manis penta- 
dactyia in J. A. S. XXIX, 93, as also ( ? from Chusan) by the late 
Dr. Cantor in Aim. Mag. JST. II. IX, (1842), p. 482; it being the 
M. javanica, Desm., as correctly determined by Mr. Arthur Adams 
in Proc. Zool. ■ Soc . 1859, p. 132. The M. aurita, Hodgson, J. A S. 
V, 234, is again identical ; whereas M. leuouba, nobis, J. A. S., XI, 
454, is akin, but distinct, — having the same auricle, but much smaller 
and more curved claws, and less development of the bristles between 
the scales ; the leucoid terminal third of tail occurs in all the spe- 
cimens examined. 
In Ann. Mag. N. II. IX, (1842), note to p. 274, Dr. Cantor re- 
marks that “ two fine Deer, Cekvus axis, of which the Chinese are 
very fond, were brought in 1840 in a junk from Formosa to Chusan.” 
How the Formosa Deer could possibly be mistaken for C. axis by any 
practised zoologist, it is difficult to comprehend. I have lately received 
from Mr. Swinhoe (on private account) two living bilcks and a doe 
of C. siiia from Japan. This is different from the G. pseudaxis lately 
N 2 
