654 MR. SCLATER ON TEE BLACK WOLF OF TBIBET. [Nov. 17,

6. On the Black Wolf of Thibet. Ph.D. F.R.S.

By P. L. SCLATER, M.A., Secretary to the Society.

[Received October 28, 1874.1

(Plate LXXVIII.) On the 6th of August, 1867, as already recorded in the Society’s

‘Proceedings’* we received, as a present, from Lieut. A. A. Kinloch and Lieut. J. Biddulph a pair of Black Wolves which had been ob- tained by these gentlemen in the previous June from some wandering Tartars at the foot of the Lanak pass, between the Tsomoriri Lake and HanlC in Thibet. The facts concerning the capture of these ani- mals are fully given in Mr. Kinloch’s valuable work on the game- animals of Thibett.

These Wolves remained with us for several years in good condition, and bred every year from 1869 to ld73; but the young ones werein every case but one destroyed by their parents. The following table gives the date of birth and number of young ones produced :-

Date. No. of.young. 1869, April 23 ................ 2 1870, ,, 14 ................ 3 1871, ,, 18 ................ 4 1872, ,, a ................ 3 1873, ,, 8 ................ 2

The only young one reared (a male of the first litter) was sold in 1869 to J. E. B. Bouverie Pusey, Esq., F.Z.S., but died the follow- ing year in that gentleman’s possession.

The female died in July 1873 3 ; the male is still living in the the Society’s Gardens. ‘

I have hitherto referred these animals to the Lupus (sive Canis) laniger of Hodgson, and have entered them in the ‘Revised Catalogue of Vertebrates ’ (p. 47) as ‘‘ Canis laniger, var. nigra.” But I now exhibit the original drawing of Mr. Hodgson’s Lupis laniger out of the series of drawings of Mammals which he has lately presented to the Society’s Library; and it will be at once apparent that our animals (of which I likewise exhibit an excellent coloured figure by Mr. Keulemans, Plate LXXVIII.) cannot be referred to that species. Indeed Mr. Kinloch has already observed, in the work above alluded to :-

‘‘Wolves of at least two sorts.are found all over Thibet; and I am not sure that there are not three varieties. I know of two, the com- mon Grey Chanko and theBlack Chanko, called by the Tartars Chanko nagpo (Black Wolf) ........ I have heard of a so-called

* See P. Z. 8.1867, p. 820. t L a r g e - h e Shooting in Thibet and the North-west. By Alexander A. A. 1 The 8 &en is now in the Gallery of‘ the Museum of the Jardin des

Kinloch. London: 1869. Harrison.

Plantea at #E&

1874.1 MR. H. E. DRESSER ON HYPOLAIS RAYA. 655

Golden Wolf; but whether it was a light-coloured specimen of the common Chanko or a different variety I am unable to say”*.

I propose, therefore, for the future to designate the Black Wolf of Thibet Canis niger, and to restrict the term Canis laniger to the grey form, to which Hodgson originally applied it.

In the Appendix to the Mammals of Thibet (p. iii.) Dr. Jerdon has referred to the existence of this animal.

The Black Wolf of Thibet is readily distinguishable from every other species of Canis known to me by its nearly uniform black shaggy fur. The muzzle, feet, and a patch on the breast are white. The height of our specimen is about 2 feet 5 inches; the length of the body from the nose to the tail 3 feet 4 inches, that of the tail 1 foot 4 inches. The two exnmples received were alike in every respect ; and the young male which attained full age was also similar. I think, therefore, that thk singular form can hardly be only a variety of the Common Wolf, which, however, may be the case with IIodgson’s Lupus lanigert.

7. On the Nest and Eggs of Hypolaia rarna (Sykes). By H. E. DBESSER.

[Received November 3, 1874.1

(Plate LXXIX.) Though far from believing that eggs alone are of any great use in

discriminating birds generally, I think that no one who has at all studied them will deny that they are of great secondary importance, and that, where other characters are but slightly defined, the eggs and nests of tolerably closely allied species or genera frequently differ 80 widely and constantly aa to form a very clear distinctive character. I may, for instance, name Acrocqhalus streperw and Acrocephalus pa- I d & , which are so exceedingly difficult to separate from dried skins alone, though in life the colour of the tarsus ie said to be invariably different ; but their eggs differ 80 coustantly and greatly that they cannot possibly be mistaken. The various species belonging to the Hypolais group also are clearly distinguishable from the ditrerent allied species by their nest and eggs; and though some of the species belong- ing to that group approach so nearly in form nnd coloration othera of the Arocephalus group, still their eggs alone show that they belong to the former. Mr. Blanford has lately brought from Persia the neat and eggs of Hypolais rama, which clearly show that this bird is a true Rypolais, nearest to Hypolais pallida, Ehr. (H. elaica, anctt.).

Curiously enough, however, the eggs of this species, which I am * I t is probably on a skin of this variety that Canis chnco, Gray, P. Z. 8.1863,

p. 94, was established. t This species was described by Mr. Hodgson in 1847, in the 7th volume of

the ‘ Calcutta Journ. of Nat. Hist.’ (p. 474). Under the m e name, in the eame year, Mr. Blyth notices (J. A. S. B. xvi. pt. 2, p. 1176) an imperfeot skin of 4 11 blrmckish or melanoid variety of the Thibetan Wolf” received from Lieut. Stm- chey by the Calcutta Museum.