LEMUR 149 



and in the rufous coloring of the cheeks, sides of the neck and throat 

 it resembles L. mongos Linn., but its black hands and feet separate it 

 from that species, as do also its dusky under parts. This is not 

 Gray's Prosimia collaris which = L. mongos Linn., nor does it seem to 

 agree with any described species; and the thought arises, can it be a 

 hybrid born in the Zoological Gardens, as it seems to have resemblance 

 to more than one species, its nose neither black nor white keeping it 

 out of both groups as arranged in the key of the species. 



There are great variations in color and in head markings among 

 individuals of this species, and this fact has been the cause of the 

 multiplication of names, and confusion in the synonymy. It is 

 the common Lemur called L. mongos generally by authors and 

 attributed to Linnaeus. It is however a larger animal than the 

 true L. MONGOS Linn., and has a black face and nose which the 

 other species never has. Attention has been called to the error, so 

 universally committed by authors, by both Schlegel and Major as 

 mentioned in the article on L. mongos Linn. The names fulvus and 

 collaris were bestowed upon this species by E. Geoffroy St. Hilaire 

 (1. c.) and both published on the same page, but as fulvus comes first, 

 it must replace the somewhat better known collaris. The types of both 

 L. FULVUS and L. collaris have disappeared from the collection in the 

 Paris Museum, but there is an example marked L. collaris E. Geoff., 

 and which was figured in the Histoire Naturelle de Madagascar by 

 Milne-Edwards and Grandidier. This animal died in the menagerie 

 of M. Polito, and was given by him to the Museum in 1828. While 

 therefore, it cannot be any specimen examined by Geoffroy when he 

 named the species, it is probable that it represents fairly enough 

 Geoffroy's form so far as can be determined by his meagre description. 

 This Paris Museum specimen may be described as follows : top of head 

 and back of neck blackish maroon ; entire upper parts and outer side of 

 limbs reddish brown ; dorsal line from neck broadening on rump, dark 

 reddish brown ; a reddish brown spot over each eye ; cheeks and large 

 patch between ears extending to throat bright rufous ; throat, under 

 part of body and inner side of limbs pale yellow, (probably faded) ; 

 hands and feet rufous; wrists and ankles bright rufous; tail chestnut. 



When considering examples of a species so varying in color as the 

 present, it is not to be wondered that writers with insufficient material 

 at their command should have been induced to describe some of their 

 specimens as distinct species, but it is not always easy, when such 

 examples are no longer accessible for examination, to accurately define 

 what species they really belong to. And this has been one of the diffi- 



