344 Mr. R. I. Pocock on the 



This p<apei- is based primarily upon an examination of these 

 examples. 



The two species above named liave quite an expensive 

 literature. Skulls assioiied to U. griseus have been figured 

 on several occasions. To these and to the specimens in the 

 Society's collection I shall revert later. 



Good fitrures of the skull of //. siinn-f have been published, 

 notably bf Gray (P. Z. S. 1^70, pp. 829-830, fi-s. 1-4), by 

 Jentiiik (Notes Leyd. Mus. vii. 1885, p. 33), by fililne- 

 Edwards aiid Grnndidier (Hist. Nat. Mada^. JMarnm., Atlas 

 ii. pis. cxxii. G & H, 1890-1896), and by Elliot (Mon. 

 Primates, i. pi. xvii., 1912); and it may be noted that these 

 figures attest no structural variations of moment, suggesting 

 that more than one form has been desciibed under the name 

 sinius. As I shall presently attempt to show, this is not the 

 case with skulls ascribed to IJ. griseus. 



The generic name Hapalemur, proposed in 1851 by 

 I. GeoflVoy for tiie species then known as Lemur griseus^ 

 met with universal and unchallenged accej)tance until 1912, 

 when Elliot, misled by a sui)erficial inspection of the text, 

 substituted Mioxicelms — emended to Mi/oxicehiis — on the 

 alleged, but entirely erroneous, grounds that Lesson in 1840 

 had given the latter title to the type-species of Hapalenmr. 

 It is quite true that the first species cited under Mioxicebus 

 was named griseus; but it is cquallv and obviously true that 

 the diagnoses, both generic and s[)ecific, of JiJioxiceb us griseus 

 have no aj)plicability to fJapdlemur griseus. On the contrary, 

 they tit tolerably closely the species for which they were 

 intended, namely, Chirogaleus major, then known as ruiUi. 

 It is possible that Lessen had at the time a specimen of a 

 different but closely allied species of CIdrogaltus before him ; 

 but until evidence on that head is forthcoming Mioxicebus 

 griseus must stand as a synonym of Chirogaleus major, 

 Jtlapalemur consequently resumes its former place in litera- 

 ture*. 



* Another unnecessary change introduced by Elliot into tlie nomen- 

 clature of lemurs is the' .substitution of the new name Allililemur for 

 Oimlevtur on the alleged grounds that Gray applied the latter generic 

 term to Chiror/aleus nnlii. That is an iucoiTccL interpretation of the 

 facts. Opolenmr (P. Z. S. 1870, pp. 85:3 tio4) was proposed by Gray for 

 a species represented in the British Museum by specimens which he 

 wrongly identitied as Chirogaleus milii. That his identification was 

 erroneous is shown by the diagnosis and figures. The characters, stated 

 and illustrated, of his Opolemur do not fit (Jhiroyaleus ; hence the former 

 cannot be a synonym of the latter, as Elliot asserted, and Opolenmr must 

 be restored to use, if the genus it designates is maintainable, with Altiii- 

 lemur as its synonym. 



