202 ON THE LEMURIDJF.. 



lar, but somewhat larger. The canines above, if canines they may be called, are 

 compressed, with a sharp conical tubercle, and an anterior and posterior set of 

 pectinations. The molars on each side are five, crowned with sharp, insectivo- 

 rous tubercles ; the first has two and a small inner notch ; the rest have three, of 

 which one is on the inside, and two are on the margin of the crown. The crowns 

 incline inwardly. The incisors below are six, the four central close together, and 

 deeply and finely pectinated ; the two posterior incisors, removed at a small dis- 

 tance from the rest, more coarsely pectinated ; the four central incisors project 

 horizontally, and meet the gum, covering the intervening part of the intermaxil- 

 lary bones, between the upper incisors, with the flat inner surface. 



The canines resemble those of the upper jaw. The molars on each side are 

 five ; the first is elongated, with a central conical projection, an anterior pecti- 

 nated ridge, and three small but acute posterior eminences ; the other molars 

 have four and even five acute tubercles ; they incline outwardly. 



Such is the dentition of this extraordinary animal, to which Bontius applied 

 the name of Vespertilio admirabilis ; an animal which, in the consideration of 

 its characters, has perplexed every naturalist. Petiver termed it Chatsingi 

 (Cat-ape), Seba Felis volans ternatanus, Linnaeus Lemur volans. Pallas re- 

 garded it, and with justice, as a form in a certain sense isolated, or rather as 

 blending in itself a mixture of the characters of others, and established for it, 

 the name of Galeopitkecus, a term having the same signification with that used 

 by Petiver. 



" Must the Galeopitkeque," says Geoffroy St. Hilaire, " be regarded as a 

 Bat, according to the views of Bontius ? In truth, the name of ' wonderful ' 

 {admirabilis) would then be justly its due as its distinguishing title, since it 

 wants the main character of that family," — viz. the long slender fingers, serving 

 as supports to a membranous wing. Yet, on the other hand, he observes, it is 

 still less a Lemur. It is not, we own, a Lemur, yet does it appear to us that 

 its affinities, intermediate as they render it, tend on the whole to place it on the 

 border line of the Lemur family. We do not agree with Geoffroy that " its 

 head is altogether that of a true carnassier." The Lemurine type of structure, 

 though modified, is not lost in it, nor is there any other type to which, with all 

 its variations from the normal form, it can be referred. With a tendency in its 

 organization to the Bats, the Galeopitkecus seems attracted as it were to the organ- 

 ization of the Lemurs, and affords a subject for the philosophic naturalist to 

 study, when, taking a wide survey of the relationships of organic forms, he ba- 

 lances their affinities, and attempts to discover the true natural classification of 

 animals. 



Where Geoffroy St. Hilaire has left a subject in abeyance, and where great 

 naturalists have differed, we ought to speak with diffidence. It may ultimately 



