4 ARKIV FÖR ZOOLOGI. BAND 10. N:0 12. 



tween luteus and johnstoni is highly reduced, if specimens of 

 the same age and sex are compared. 



According to the »key» which Elliot has published for 

 the Guenons of this group, and the same statement is also 

 repeated in the descriptions (1. c. p. 346), johnstoni should 

 have the x>chin white», while luteus is said to have »chin 

 black». When I read this I was much astonished, because 

 the whole series of Tumbilis from the Kihmanjaro-district 

 (thus to judge from the locality true johnstoni) kept in this 

 museum have the chin blackish. To make sure about this 

 I took the liberty of writing to British Museum Nat. Hist. 

 and ask about the condition of the type of johnstoni in this 

 respect. In reply to this I was favoured with a letter from 

 Mr. G. DoLLMAN in which he stated: »the chin proper in 

 the type is clothed with dark hairs; the white hairs only 

 appearing posterior to the real chin». Thus this difference 

 as well is abolished. New material of adult animals and 

 renewed examination of this is needed before it can be de- 

 cided whether Elliot's luteus can be maintained, or whether 

 it must be united with either johnstoni or rubellus. 



The latter is also by far not so strongly different from 

 other races of East African Tumbilis as one can be led to 

 believe from Elliot' s description even with regard to the 

 colour of its upper parts. This is proved by my material 

 from Kanyakeni, all adult males shot out of the same band. 

 Some are more reddish »tawny», others more ochre-coloured 

 with black speckling. The latter differ thus less from john- 

 stoni PococK, although, as I have pointed out before, the 

 »reddish» resp. ochre-colour extends further back in the spe- 

 cimens from Fort Hall and adjoining district so that they 

 can be distinguished from equally old specimens of the john- 

 stoni race of Kilimanjaro. 



With regard to the Kima monkeys of the albogularis group 

 inhabiting East Africa Elliot has made himself guilty to 

 several mistakes. The Kima of Kilimanjaro was correctly 

 described by the present author 1908 under the name Cerco- 

 pithecus albogularis kibonotensis. The subspecific name was 

 selected from the name of the type locality Kibonoto. When 

 quoting this Elliot manages to spell the name correctly a 

 few times, but otherwise he uses mostly names of his own 

 invention such as kinobotensis, kobotensis, as if it was a game 



