[ 335 ] 
XXIII. On the Genus Galeopithecus. By G. R. Waternovuse, Esq. 
Communicated October 23, 1838. 
IN the various works on Mammalia there is much confusion as regards the species of 
Galeopithecus. M. Geoffroy St. Hilaire, in the ‘ Magazin Encyclop. VII.,’ indicated by 
imperfect descriptions what he considered three species. The Gal. rufus, which is, ac- 
cording to the description, rather more than one foot (English measure) in length ; Gal. 
variegatus, measuring a little more than six inches in length ; and thirdly, the G. Terna- 
tensis, which is said to,be smaller than the last. The single dimension of the length of 
each of these species, together with a description of their colouring, and the statement 
that the head of G. variegatus is proportionately broader, and has the muzzle more 
elongated than G. rufus, are all the facts relating to the distinguishing characters that I 
can procure of the animals in question. 
Audebert states that the size of the head and the varied colours of G. variegatus ap- 
pear to indicate that this species is merely a variety of G. rufus. 
After the description of G. Ternatensis, M. Desmarest has the following note. ‘‘ This 
species, admitted by M. Geoffroy upon the incomplete description given by Seba, is not 
known to me. The fur, by which the body is covered, is adpressed, short, and soft, 
resembling that of a mole.” I may add that such is the character of the fur in a very 
young Galeopithecus now before me. 
In the ‘ Manuel de Mammalogie’ of M. Lesson, the three species above mentioned are 
admitted without comment: his account is in fact the same as that found in M. Desma- 
rest’s ‘Mammalogie.’ 
Fisher, in his ‘Synopsis Mammalium,’ sinks the three species in question, and so 
does Cuvier in the ‘ Régne Animal.’ 
M. Temminck, in his ‘ Monographies de Mammalogie,’ states that there are two spe- 
cies of Galeopithecus, possessing well-marked osteological characters, and that the ani- 
mals named variegatus, rufus, and Ternutensis ought to be united. 
Such is the state in which I find the genus Galeopithecus, and with a fine series of 
specimens before me I am unable to identify either of them with any published descrip- 
tion. Of all the specimens which have come under my observation, I have never seen 
any adult animal so small as those described. 
As M. Temminck states, there are decidedly two very distinct species ; species which 
may easily be distinguished by an inspection of their skulls, or even by their external 
characters. I regret that for these two species I cannot find appropriate names among 
