MAMMALS COLLECTED IN SIAM. 345 
ternal appearance of both seems very similar. There are the 
same distinct pale tufts on either side the root of the tail, though 
the tuft at the end is reddish in anduwmanensis; the hairs of the 
upper back and shoulders are no longer than in nemestrina, adusta 
and indochinensis, and the so-called “horseshoe-shaped crest” is 
similar —this latter appears to have been much exaggerated in 
descriptions and illustrations. The limbs are apparently shorter 
but proportionately stouter, and the skull (according to Anderson, 
for that of the present example is now missing) had the face more 
vertical and the muzzle much shorter (Zool. Res., p. 58, figs 1 and 2). 
The main differential characters therefore seem to be :—- 
1. Muzzle elongated; back much blackened; annulations 
coarser and less distinct, and the area covered ky them not forming 
such a large proportion of the pelage ; limbs longer....nemestrinu. 
2. Muzzle modified and tapering; back only © slightly 
blackened on the median line; annulations finer and markedly 
present over a large area; limbs as in wemestrina (a) shoulders bright 
russet...adustu. (b) shoulders only tinged with dull russet 
...dndochinensis, 
3. Muzzle much reduced and shortened, resulting in a much 
more vertical face ; median line of back scarcely blackened; pelage 
much annulated nearly everywhere; limbs apparently stouter and 
shorter....audamunensis. 
In spite of the cranial and other differences it is indubitable 
that all are only subspecies of nemestrina. 
In previous papers on Siamese mammals I recorded as 
M. andamanensis two females which evidently belong to the present 
form, one of which came from a locality but a few miles distant 
from Lat Bua Kao. I did this, however, with some hesitation 
because of the difficulty in identifying solitary females of these 
monkeys of which no good account existed, and it was solely 
because descriptions and measurements “(Zool. Res., pp. 53, 55) 
regarded by Anderson as those of wnduwimuaiensis so closely applied, 
that my specimens were placed under that name, adusta being 
rejected in faith of Elliot’s statement that the females were without 
VOL. Ill, No. f, 1919. 
