the Genera of Hapalide. 255 
more strongly emarginate than Hapale and Leontocebus, the 
postero-superior angle being prominent and the postero- 
inferior lamina widely rounded. This I have been able to 
verify on a living example of I. midas *. 
The chance of error in judging of the form of the ear from 
dried skins is shown by the skin of the type of Micoella 
sericea, Gray (= Hapale chrysoleuca, Wagn.), in the British 
Museum. This skin was made up for the study collection 
from a mounted specimen originally exhibited in the gallery, 
and the ears appear to be like those of Gdipomidas, except 
for the tufts of hair they carry. Nevertheless, from the 
original figure and description of the specimen (P. Z. 8S. 
1868, p. 257, pl. xxiv.), it is evident that the pinna of the ear 
was provided in the living animal with a well-developed 
postero-inferior lamina apparently like that of Hapale jacchus. 
Clearly, therefore, the ears of the dried skin have been 
mutilated. 
Synonymy of the Genera. 
Genus LEONTOCEBUS, Wagner. 
Leontocebus, Wagner, in Schreber’s Saug. i. Uebersicht. p. ix (1839 or 
1840) t ; type chrysomelas, Kuhl. (selected by Elliot), 
Leontopithecus, Lesson, Spec. Mamm, p. 200 (1840); type martkina, 
Less. =rosalia, Linn. 
Marikina, Reichenbach, Vollst. Nat. Affen. p. 57 (1862) ; type sosalia, 
Linn. 
In addition to L. rosalia and L. chrysomelas, which differ 
from all other Hapalidz in their long-palmed, syndactylous 
hands, this genus probably contains L. leoninus, Humb., a 
species about which practically nothing is unkuown apart 
from the colour. 
* The importance of this observation lies in the error of determination 
that Boas (‘Ohrknorpel etc. der Saugethiere,’ 1912, pl. xxili. tig. 243) 
seems to me to have made in figuring the ear of Zdipomidas edipus as 
that of Hapale rufimanus (= Mystax midas). At all events, this figure 
does not represent the ear of any example of Mystax midas, but corre- 
sponds closely with that of every specimen of G:dipomidas edipus that I 
have examined, 
+ Elliot, following Palmer, gives 1839 as the date of this name, pre- 
sumably on Sherborn’s authority (P. Z. 8. 1891, p. 587) ; but, although 
the part of Wagner’s edition of Schreber dealing with the monkeys was 
published, according to Sherborn, in 1839, it is not obvious that the 
“ Uebersicht” and preface were published till 1840. The name may be 
given, however, the benefit of the doubt, thus carrying priority over 
Leontopithecus. 
