20 
SECOND YARKAND MISSION. 
The only difference I can see from a fine Norwegian skin in the Indian Museum is that tk e 
Kashghar specimens are rather more rufous. 
The colour of the upper parts generally is pale-brown with a slight lilac tinge, darkes 
on the hack, but with no distinct central stripe ; the under-fur is light orange brown, tb e 
extreme tips of the longer hairs are sometimes black, sometimes white, thus producing a 
slight silvery appearance. 
The tail is 7 or 8 inches long (probably somewhat stretched), about 0 inches at the en 
being black. The ears are tipped with black, and have black tufts at the extremity) aB 
inch to an inch-and-a-lialf long ; abdomen white with a few small black spots. The indict' 
tions of spots on the sides and limbs are very faint indeed. 
to 
Family CANID sL. 
13. Canis lupus. 
Linn., Syst. Nat., i, p. 58. 
1, 2, Plat skins purchased at Kashghar ; 3, 4, flat skins without label. 
The four skins in the collection may be referred apparently rather to C. lupus than 
C. laniger : according to Mr. Blyth, 1 * the Tibetan wolf, Lupus laniger 3 of Hodgson) lS 
distinguished by its paler colour, owing to the absence of black-tipped hairs on the sid eS ’ 
and the distinct black streak on the forelimbs of the European wolf is but slightly indicate 
in the Tibetan animal. The fulvous of the European wolf is replaced by a delicate 1% _ 
isabelline, or rufous cream-colour. Mr. Blyth also points out that C. laniger is a slights 
animal with smaller paws, and he mentions some cranial differences, but, on the whole, k e 
appears doubtful whether the Tibetan wolf is worthy of specific distinction. 
On the whole, however, naturalists appear fairly agreed that the two races must be d lS " 
tinguished. There is one peculiarity at least in which the Tibetan wolf agrees better with ^ 
Indian species, C. pallipes , than with C. lupus ; this is the proportion of the * carnassial tooth 
in the upper jaw to the true or tubercular molars. In the European wolf the length of the caI ' 
nassial tooth exceeds that of the two molars together ; the reverse is the case in the Indian wd ■ 
On examining the skulls of Tibetan wolves in the Indian Museum 3 * * * * 1 found that they ag* ee ^ 
in this particular with those of C. pallipes, and differed from C. lupus. The importance 
the distinction lias been pointed out in a pamphlet by Professor Jeitteles of Vienna, who ^ 
shown that none of the larger domestic dogs can be descended from the European 
because of the relative proportions of their teeth, but that all must have been derived 
the Indian wolf, or from allied forms. Professor Jeitteles’ remarks induced me to exanii 11 '’ 
the Tibetan wolves’ skulls. 
In the absence of the skull, it is, of course, impossible to say with certainty that t 1 
Wolf of Eastern Turkestan is the same as Canis lupus , but it is probable that the two 
identical. 
1 J. A. S. B., 1817, xv i, p. 1176. e 
" Hodgson, Calc. Jour. Nat. Hist., 1847, vii, p. 474, Canis chanco, Gray, P. Z. S., 1863, p. 94. Although in the s ®, 
year, 1863, a specimen of C. laniger with a skull was presented by Mr. Hodgson to the British Museum, it appears doubtful wbe 
this specimen was compared by Dr. Gray with his C. chanco, for in the catalogue of carnivorous, &c. mammalia, published in 1 
Hodgson’s species is simply placed with a query under Lupus chanco. Hodgson distinctly stated that his L. laniger was theTib e 
chanco, but his specimen was from the country north of Sikkim ; Gray's from Western Tibet (Chinese Tartary). 
P. A. S. B., 1877, p. 116. 
