78 PYGATHRIX 



his little brown monkey with Edwards' black one, for he nowhere 

 indicates that he knew that any species of black monkey had brown or 

 red young, and he had no knowledge of the locality of his species as he 

 quotes Guiana, as given by Edwards for the habitat. 



It is clearly impossible, therefore, to prove that Schreber's specimen 

 was a Pygathrix, or to connect this seven inch brownish red example 

 with the black monkey of Java, or in fact with any species known, and it 

 can only be regarded as indeterminable, and Sitnia maura Schreber, 

 must be dropped from the list of the Primates. 



Now the question arises what is the name for the Javan black 

 . Monkey? Messrs. Thomas and Wroughton decide that it should 

 be pyrrha Horsfield, described from a female that had retained the 

 reddish color of the young, never having assumed the black pelage of 

 the adult, and reject aurata previously given by E. GeofFroy, also to 

 a red female, which had not assumed the adult coloration, because, they 

 "do not think the evidence for the identification of Geoflfroy's C. 

 AURATUS with this monkey is sufficient to justify the use of his name." 

 The knowledge which these Authors had of Geoffroy's type appears 

 to have been derived from his description only, and which, unfor- 

 tunately in the majority of cases, is all that Authors usually have 

 to assist them in reaching a decision. But the Type of P. aurata 

 still remains in the Paris Museum, and resembles so closely red 

 females sent by Mr. Shortridge from Java to the British Museum, that 

 there can be no hesitation in ascribing it to the same species. Geoffroy's 

 type is a female, its locality unknown, but the black hairs intermingled 

 with the golden yellow ones of the tail is a strong indication of its 

 affinity to the Javan black Pygathrix. 



Geoffroy described previously on the same page the Javan species 

 as Cercopithecus maurus; the adult as black ; and the first and second 

 ages as more or less red. There would be no question what name the 

 species should properly bear if it were not for the doubt as to what was 

 the animal Erxleben and Schreber called maurus. If it was a 

 Pygathrix, and not this species, it would invalidate the name for the 

 present genus, but as it can never now be determined what species 

 maurus, as employed by Erxleben and Schreber, really represented, it 

 is better to drop the name and take that of aurata, although the latter 

 is misleading as regards the color of the adult. Geoffroy's type is 

 without a doubt a red female of the black Javan Pygathrix and is the 

 same as pyrrhus Hodgson, and the name aur.\ta has priority. 



