PITHECUS 183 



1875. P. L. Sclater, in Proceedings of the Zoological Society of 

 London. 



P. FUSCATUS Blyth, figured as Macacus speciosus (nee F. 

 Cuvier). 



1876. Schlegel, Museum d'Histoire Naturelle des Pays-Bas, Simice. 

 In this work the species of Pithecus are placed in two genera, 

 Cercocebus and Macacus. In the first are: (C.) cynomolgos 

 (nee Linn.), = P. irus F. Cuvier; (C.) pileatus and (C.) 

 siNicus. In the last are (M.) silenus (nee Linn.), = P. 

 ALBiBARBATUS (Kerr) ; (M.) nemestrinus; (M.) erythceus = 

 P. rhesus; (M.) speciosus F. Cuv. ; and {M.) arctoides = P. 

 SPECIOSUS F. Cuv. In the text is mentioned as distinct, (M.) 

 thibetanum Milne-Ed., and as varieties, in the text of {M.) 

 erythrcBus = P. rhesus are given: (M.) assamensis; (M.) 

 rheso-similis which he considers apud Blyth = (M.) assa- 

 mensis; {M.) SANCTi-jOHANNis; (M.) LASiOTis ; {M .) tcheli- 

 ensis = (M.) lasiotis; and (M.) cyclopsis. (No specimens 

 of these last six forms are in the Leyden Museum and the 

 Author's opinion is based upon the published descriptions, and 

 their describers' statements) ; (M.) speciosus F. Cuv. ; and S. 

 SYLVANus Linn. (M.) nicer belongs to Cynopithecus, and 



(M.) OCHREATUS tO MaGUS. 



1878. Anderson, Anatomical and Zoological Researches, comprising 

 an account of the Zoological Results of the two Expeditions to 

 Western Yunnan. 



Seventeen species of Pithecus are here recorded, two of which 

 have of late been placed in the genus Magus. The species 

 given, all under the genus Macacus, are: (M.) arctoides — P. 

 speciosus (Cuv.) ; (M.) leoninus Blyth (nee Shaw), = P. 

 andamanensis Bartl. ; (M.) rhesus; (Af.) assamensis; (M.) 

 cynomolgos (nee Linn.), = P. irus (F. Cuv.) ; (M.) nemes- 

 trinus; (M.) FUSCATUS ; (M.) thibetanum; (M.) rufes- 

 cens; (M.) lasiotis; (M.) sancti-johannis ; (M.) cyclop- 

 sis; (M.) siNicus; (M.) pileatus; (M.) silenus (nee Linn.), 

 = P. ALBIBARBATUS (Kerr). (M.) maurus and (M.) 

 OCHREATUS have been placed in the genus Magus. The Author 

 fully discusses their values and the relationship of the species 

 reviewed, and of the examples that have served as types both 

 for the recognized species and for those that are included in the 

 synonymy, and his views are given at considerable length. The 

 synonymy is copious and on the whole very correct, and the 



