20 
SECOND YARKAND MISSION. 
The only difference I can see from a fine Norwegian skin in the Indian Museum is that the 
Kashghar specimens are rather more rufous. 
The colour of the upper parts generally is pale-brown with a slight lilac tinge, darkest 
on the back, hut with no distinct central stripe ; the under-fur is light orange brown, the 
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 3 inches at the end 
being black. The ears are tipped with black, and have black tufts at the extremity, an 
inch to an inch-and-a-half long; abdomen white with a few small black spots. The indica¬ 
tions of spots on the sides and limbs are very faint indeed. 
Family CANID2E. 
13. Canis lupus. 
Linn., Syst. Nat., i, p. 58. 
1, 2, Flat 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 to 
C. laniger : according to Mr. Blyth, 1 2 the Tibetan wolf, Lupus laniger 2 of Hodgson, is 
distinguished by its paler colour, owing to the absence of black-tipped hairs on the sides, 
and the distinct black streak on the forelimbs of the European wolf is but slightly indicated 
in the Tibetan animal. The fulvous of the European wolf is replaced by a delicate fight 
isabelfine, or rufous cream-colour. Mr. Blyth also points out that C. laniger is a slighter 
animal with smaller paws, and he mentions some cranial differences, but, on the whole, he 
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 dis¬ 
tinguished. There is one peculiarity at least in which the Tibetan wolf agrees better with the 
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 car¬ 
nassial tooth exceeds that of the two molars together; the reverse is the case in the Indian wolf. 
On examining the skulls of Tibetan wolves in the Indian Museum 3 I found that they agreed 
in this particular with those of C. pallipes , and differed from C. lupus. The importance of 
the distinction has been pointed out in a pamphlet by Professor Jeitteles of Vienna, who has 
shown that none of the larger domestic dogs can be descended from the European wolf 
because of the relative proportions of their teeth, but that all must have been derived from 
the Indian wolf, or from allied forms. Professor Jeitteles’ remarks induced me to examine 
the Tibetan wolves’ skulls. 
In the absence of the skull, it is, of course, impossible to say with certainty that the 
wolf of Eastern Turkestan is the same as Canis lupus, but it is probable that the two are 
identical. 
1 J. A. S. B., 1847, xvi, p. 1176. 
2 Hodgson, Calc. Jour. Hat. Hist., 1847, vii, p. 474, Canis chanco, Gray, P. Z. S., 1863, p. 94. Although in the same 
year, 1863, a specimen of C. laniger with a skull was presented by Mr. Hodgson to the British Museum, it appears doubtful whether 
this specimen was compared by Dr. Gray with his C. chanco, for iu the catalogue of carnivorous, Ac. mammalia, published in 1869, 
Hodgson’s species is simply placed with a query under Lupus chanco. Hodgson distinctly stated that his L. laniger was the Tibetan 
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. 
