226 Mr. R. I. Pocock on the 
in section, although slightly compressed in its distal fourth 
except at the upturned * apex, which exhibits a small ovate 
thickening. ‘Lhe proximal end, where the bone becomes 
spongy, is much expanded, but between this expanded portion 
aud the apex the shaft gradually narrows (fig. 1, E, F). 
On pp. 784-785 of the volume of the Proc. Zool. Soe. 
containing Anderson’s description of AZ. brunneus, Murie 
described the external male genitalia of the Japanese macaque 
which he named Macacus speciosus, The name now adopted 
is A. fuscatus, Blyth. I think we must assume, provisionally 
at all events, that Murie’s identification was correct, although 
I do not know the history of the specimen he examined. 
The glans penis itself appears to be shaped very much as 
in the Burmese species A/. speciosus, being broad at the base, 
where it is bent at an angle on the proximal portion of the 
organ ; from the base it tapers towards the apex, which is 
slightly upturned and slightly expanded; but, as Murie pointed 
out, its surface is quite smooth, and not spicular T (fig. 1, I). 
Despite the similarities in the glans, the bacula of the two 
species are very different, That of the Japanese species is 
nearly straight, narrowed and pointed at its proximal end, 
lanceolate at its distal end, with its lower surface widely 
channelled. It is in this latter respect that it differs so 
markedly from the subcylindrical baculum of the Burmese 
form. ‘he bone was 50 mm. long (fig. 1, K, L). 
Curiously enough, neither Anderson nor Murie appears to 
have been particularly impressed by the peculiarities of the 
glans penis in these two species, nor aware that it differs 
profoundly from the glans in all the commoner species of 
macaques, such as sinicus, rus and its allies, rhesus, and 
* Anderson described the baculum of his specimen as turned down- 
wards at the apex. ‘The description was probably drawn up after the 
bone had been cleaned for examination, and I suspect its upper and 
under surfaces were confused. 
+ On examining Murie’s figure (p. 785) of the penis, I was at first in- 
clined to think that the glans differs materially from that of the Burmese 
species in being bent upwards upon the proximal portion of the organ, 
with the thickening at the angle on the under side, instead of on the 
upper side as in the Burmese animal, and the apex turned slightly down- 
wards instead of upwards. This was due to my interpreting the dark 
shading on the right-hand portion of the figure of the glans as repre- 
senting a long slit-like urethral orifice extending from the proximal end 
of the glans over rather more than two-thirds of its length. In that 
case the orifice, both in position and length, would differ remarkably 
from that of the Burmese species. It would be unjust, however, to 
believe Murie capable of overlooking such a difference. Hence we must 
assume that his figure of the penis represents the right aspect of that 
organ, the upper side being above and the under side below. The 
shading, in question, is probally only a groove in the epithelium. 
