FELTS CHAUS, SUESP. NILOTICA. 
1-0 
There can be no question, I think, that all these cats are examples of one species; 
but, at the same time, if the skull of an Egyptian animal is compared with, 
say, a skull from Rajputana, India, the differences are so great in the details I have 
indicated that they might be regarded as specifically distinct, although there are 
connecting-links through Persian and Caucasian skulls. It is probable that if skulls of 
F. cIiaus{oY F. jacquemontii) from Bengal were compared with the Egyptian skulls, the 
differences would be still greater. As names have been applied to these extremes in 
the distribution of the species, the western form found in Egypt and still further to the 
west may be denominated Felis chaus subsp.-, the Caucasian and Persian form with 
smaller teeth Felis chaus subsp.-, and the Indian form Felis chaus subsp.-. 
[The above notes were evidently written before my revision of this group was 
published in the ‘ Annals and Magazine of Nat. Hist.’ ser. 7. vol. ii. 1898, p. 293, and it 
it is therefore the more satisfactory to find that precisely similar conclusions are 
arrived at. 
The cats being of general interest, I have thought it necessary to make the following 
supplementary notes rather fuller than usual. 
Felis chaus is very considerably larger than F. lyhica. Form strong; legs long; 
tail short, about reaching the hocks. The general body-colour grizzled sandy fawn, 
with no conspicuous markings ; the ears red-brown, with black tips, bases, and a 
small spot towards the middle of the outer boiher; the forehead and occiput very 
inconspicuously striped; the face between the eyes pale buff; a conspicuous dark 
brown lachrymal patch. The dorsal line more richly coloured reddish, with dark 
under-fur; the tail similarly coloured for a short distance, then greyer, with two 
very narrow black bands close to the short black tip ; the under side of the tail is 
uniform grey from its base to the black tip. The sides of the body near the belly are 
very indistinctly spotted ; these slightly darker marks show more distinctly when viewed 
from behind, as they owe their existence, to a certain extent, to the darker colour of 
the under-fur. 
The legs are more rufous than the body, the feet foxy red; the upper parts of the 
legs are marked with inconspicuous bands, one far blacker and broader than the rest 
on the inner side of the forearm, and sometimes a second about the elbow. The chin 
very pale buff, the throat grizzled and dark, somewdiat like the upper surface ; the chest 
in the middle line and the belly pale fawn, very inconspicuously blotched with darker 
colour. On either side of the chest, under the fore legs, there is a very pale patch 
where the hairs are almost white to their bases; this is intensified by its proximity to 
a patch behind the elbow, where the hairs have only buff tips and are otherwise soot- 
coloured to their bases; a similar dark patch occurs on the back of the hind legs just 
above the hocks. 
2 A 2 
