SEMNOPITIIECUS FEMORALIS. 217 



femoralis hardly can be explained by difference in age 

 alone ; so that in my opinion we will do correct to accept , 

 at all events previously, Schlegel's views and call the Bor- 

 neo-form S. chrysomelas. I remark that the skull of S. 

 chrysomelas, drawn by Schlegel in the » Verhandelingen" 

 is not to be found in our Museum and that I wrongly 

 said in my » Catalogue ostéologique" that skull b was there 

 figured. The two skulls mentioned in my » Catalogue" are 

 fullgrown but not so adult as Schlegel's figures indicate, 

 the canines being much less developed in our specimens. 



Semnopithecus maurus auctorum. 



The second above mentioned Semnopithecus is a beautiful 

 specimen belonging to the form described by Desmarest as 

 S. pruinosus. Although Schlegel is quite right in his sta- 

 tement that the name given by Desmarest is more appro- 

 priate than the specific title bestowed upon it by Raffles, 

 viz. cristatus, I think we should be forced to use Raffles' 

 name, as having the priority of date and the more as 

 being accompanied by a very excellent description. Schlegel 

 wrote (Catalogue, Simiae , p. 58): »cette espèce ressemble 

 »sous tous les rapports au S. maurus, a cette exception 

 »près qu'elle a tous les poils du pelage plus ou moins lar- 

 »gement terminés de gris blanchatre. Elle remplace le «S. 

 » maurus a Sumatra, Borneo et dans l'ïle de Bangka." 

 Anderson (Yunnan Expedition, p. 30) wrote: »in the size 

 »and proportions of its parts S. cristatus closely resembles 

 »S. maurus, and many zoologists have considered it merely 

 »as a local race of that form, an opinion justifiable from 

 »the mere consideration of their external characters, but 

 »it remains to be ascertained whether these views are sup- 

 » ported by the structure of their skeletons." 



Now the skull of S. pruinosus (cf. plate 9, fig s . 5, 6 

 and 7, drawn after the skull of Hagen's specimen) agrees 

 in all details so exactly with the same bony parts of S. 

 maurus that I cannot see any important difference and as 

 the external characters of both forms are so very inconstant 



Notes from the Leyden Museum , "Vol. XI . 



