108 Dobson — On Murina and Harpyiocephalus. [Mat, 



into different geneva, and as the name ' Murina'' had the priority of Harpy- 

 iocephalus I placed the new species in the former genus. 



I was obliged to defer publishing these remarks till I should have had 

 an opportunity of examining skeletons of both species. Meanwhile I re- 

 ceived Dr. Peters's paper with descriptions of two of the species referred to 

 above in which he adds that it is scarcely possible any longer to maintain. 

 Harpyiocephalus and Murina as distinct genera ; he does not, however, 

 unite them, probably for the same reason. 



An examination of the skeletons of Murina cyclotis, and Harpyiocepha- 

 lus harpia has confirmed the opinion previously formed of their affinity. 

 The chief differences are to be found in the skulls, the remaining parts of 

 the skeletons of both species corresponding in all respects. 



Compared with M. cyclotis, the skull of H. liarpia is much shortened 

 in front of the anterior origin of the zygoma, the distance between the infra- 

 orbital foramen and the inner incisor being the same in both skulls, though 

 their respective lengths are as 10 : 12. This shortness of the muzzle in H. 

 harpia diminishes the length of the tooth-row and leaves no room for the 

 third molar which is constantly absent in adult animals, probably pushed 

 out by the growth of the other teeth. These might be regarded as impor- 

 tant differences, were it not that two authors have mentioned the presence 

 of an additional tooth in the young animal, and in Dr. Peters's description 

 of H. Huttonii, a third molar is referred to. 



The mandible of H. harpia is also, correspondingly shortened, and the 

 teeth are crowded between the canine and the anterior edge of the coronoid 

 process ; the third molar is much smaller than the second, and being placed 

 on the commencement of the ascending ramus is elevated by its longest 

 cusp above the others. 



The teeth in M. cyclotis are very similar to those in H liarpia, both 

 upper premolars are large and bear about the same proportion to the canines 

 and molars as they do in that species, agreeing in this respect with M. 

 grisea, lately described by Dr. Peters,* but differing remarkably from M. 

 suillus in which the first upper premolar is much smaller than the second 

 which equals the canine in vertical extent. 



In H. harpia, the skull is proportionately more swollen and elevated 

 between the centres of the zygomatic arches than in M. cyclotis, and the 

 sagittal crest much more developed ; the bases of the skulls are very similar, 

 the only difference observable being the greater backward prolongation of 

 the palate bones behind the molar teeth in H. harpia, but this is perhaps 

 more apparent than real as the absence of the third molar adds to the 

 length. 



* Monatsber. Berlin Akacl, April 1872, p. 288. 



