36 
SECOND YAEKAND MISSION. 
far too small for A. caudatus. The locality whence Severtzoff’s only specimen, since lost, 
was procured, was “ south of the Aulje-ata, in the mountain chains between Tallas and 
Chirchik.” This is north of Khokand and about 350 miles north-west of the Kaskasu pass, 
which again is at least 200 miles north of any place known to be inhabited by A. ccmdatus. 
Arctomys dichrous, 1 from the mountains of Cabul, is a very different species from A. 
aureus , being much less yellow, without any black on the back, and having the upper parts 
pale dull tawny and the lower parts rufous brown. It appears also to be a smaller animal. 
In the Indian Museum there is a skull of a marmot, 2 brought by Sir A. Burnes from Cabul, 
and much resembling that of A. aureus. It is however distinguished by being broader 
across the zygomatic arches, by having much broader and differently shaped nasal bones, and 
by a few other differences. This skull may perhaps have belonged to an adult of A. dichrous. 
the typical specimens of which are immature, but it is impossible to determine this; the 
nasal bones are similar, but the skull of A. dichrous appears longer in proportion to the 
breadth, besides being very much smaller, although all the molars are through the jaw. 
27. Arctomys himalayantjs. Pis. XII, XII«. 
Hodgson, J. A. S. B., 1841, x, p. 777.—W. Blanford, J. A. S. B., 1875, xliv, p. 121. 
A. himalayanus, potius tibetensis , Hodgs., J. A. S. B., 1843, xii, p. 409. 
“A. bobac, Schreb.,” partim. Gray, List Spec. Mam. Coll. B. M., 1843, p. 148,—Horsfield, Cat. 
Mam. I. H. Mus., p. 164 (1851).—Blyth, Cat. Mam. Mus. As. Soc., p. 108 (1863).—Jerdon, 
Mam. Ind., p. 181 (1867).—Anderson, P. Z. S., 1871, p. 560.— nec Sehreber. 
A. tataricus, Jameson, 3 LTnstit. 1847, xv., p. 384. 
“A. tibetaims, Hodgson/ - ’ Pitzinger, Sitzb. k. k. Akad. Wiss. Wien., 1867, Iv, i, p. 491.—Adams, 
P. Z. S., 1858, p. 521. 
A. robustus, A. Milne Edwards, Nouv. Arch. Mus. Hist. Nat., vii, Bulletin, p. 92, (1870). 
Beckerches Mamm., i, p. 309, PI. XL VII, XLIX, fig. 2. 
“ ? A. baibacinus, Brandt,” Severtzoff, Turk. Jev., p. 61, nec Brandt, teste Severtzoff, J. A. S. B,, 
1875, xliv, Pt. 2, p. 126; Ann. Mag. N. H., July, 1876, Ser. 4, xviii, p. 50, note. 
Of this marmot no specimens were procured by Dr. Stoliczka during his last expedition, 
but I have examined the three brought from the Sanju pass in the Kuenlun range, south of 
Yarkand, by Dr. Henderson, and described by Dr. Anderson in the Proceedings of the 
Zoological Society, l. c. So far as I am able to judge, I quite concur with Dr. Anderson in 
assigning them to the species originally described by Hodgson from Tibet, and which was 
referred by Gray, Blyth, Anderson, and other writers, to A. hohac. It is, however, a much 
larger species than the Bobac. 
I have already entered into the confused synonymy of this Himalayan and Tibetan 
marmot in the Journal of the Asiatic Society of Bengal (l. c.), and need not recapitulate 
further than to point out that the species is probably the A. tartaricus of Jameson, the 
description of which I have been unable to consult, and the A. robustus of M. Milne 
Edwards from Eastern Tibet. The latter species, as figured in the “ Becherches,” appears 
1 Anderson, Ann. and Mag. Nat. Hist., October, 1875, Ser. 4, xvi, p. 283. 
2 One of the specimens referred by Mr. Blyth to Arctomys bobac in his Catalogue of the Mammalia in the Museum Asiatic 
Society, No. 348 E, p. 109. 
3 This reference is quoted from Wiegman’s “ Archiv,” no copy of the work named being available. 
