226 
THE MAMMALS OF EGYPT. 
From this table it appears that the foxes of the Nile Valley conform in their inter¬ 
molar palatine breadth, and its relation to the external length of the two molars, to 
the foxes of Europe— i. e., that the palatine breadth is in excess of the length of the 
molars ; whereas in the one fox from Algeria mentioned in the table, and therefore 
presumably identical with the foxes from Algeria and Tunisia regarded by Lataste as 
the same as the V. nilotica {=V. cegyptiaca, Sonn.), the relation of the breadth of 
the palate to the length of the molars is, as stated by Lataste, the reverse of the former, 
viz,, the palatal breadth, at the point indicated, is less than the length of the molars. 
It is, however, so little that, in view of the fact that the skull of a Tangiers fox 
cannot possibly be distinguished from the skull of the Algiers fox in its other 
characters, and that it has its palato-molar width very slightly exceeding its molar 
length, thus conforming to the relation subsisting between these parts of the skull in 
the European and Egyptian foxes, it would appear that this is not a stable character, 
and that the importance which M. Lataste attached to it is not sanctioned by facts. 
It is noteworthy that the female fox from the Wells of Moses, which has its teeth 
of about the same size as those of the Egyptian foxes, has its palato-molar breadth less 
than its molar length, in this conforming to the proportions of these parts in F. persica 
and in the foxes of Tunisia and Algeria observed by Lataste; while the length of 
its tarsus is even less than that of F. leucopus, to which the animal externally has a 
strong resemblance, Muth the exception of the colour of its limbs. Its skull, however, 
would attain a greater size than any of the skulls of F. leucopus im the British 
Museum, as it is not yet mature. 
There can be no doubt that the skulls of the Barbary foxes are in their general 
form more akin to those of the foxes of Egypt than of Europe, the difference to which I 
refer as existing between the Algerian and Egyptian skulls and those of Europe being 
that the latter are slightly more arched in the fronto-parietal region than the 
former, and are altogether higher in the frontal region and broader; but even these 
characters are variable. 
I do not consider that any importance can be attached to the second character 
selected by M. Lataste as a means of separating the Barbary foxes from the European, 
as in some skulls of the latter the posterior borders of the bullae fall within the 
posterior border of the glenoid cavity, while in others they fall short of it or just 
reach it. The extent to which the bullae appear to approach the posterior border of 
the glenoid cavity depends largely on the degree of development of the posterior 
glenoid process, which is subject to variation. At present the materials at my disposal 
are not sufficient to determine the exact relationship which the small fox from the 
Wells of Moses bears to the fox of Egypt, to V. persica, to F. leucopus, or to the fox 
of Barbary and Morocco; but I think the facts I have brought forward tend to prove 
that the fox of Lower Egypt is only a very slight modification of F. vulpes, so trifling as 
