Lemurs of the Hapaleraur Group. 347 



tlie conclusion that they are the oUvacens-^ovm of ^mews, ajid 

 Jiot typical gn'seus. Ttiis conclusion is borne out by the skull 

 ■of the exam[)le received on Si. 6. 03, which is a little larger 

 than the skull of griseus figured by Milne-Edwards and 

 Orandidier. It also has the muzzle less steeply inclined, the 

 posterior half of the Kyg-oniatic arch a little more arcuate, and 

 the glenoid a little lower with reference to the dental line. 

 I have not sufficient material to judge of the systematic value 

 of these differences. Otherwise the two skulls are very much 

 alike ; and it is possible that M.-Edwards's illustration, hh 

 suggested below, was taken from an example of what he 

 called the olivaceus variety o^ griseus. 



I stated above that skulls of specimens assigned to Ilopa- 

 lemur griseus have been figured on several occasions; and 

 the figures indicate confusion of more than one form under 

 that name. For instance, if the figure of the sicull published 

 by Sciilegel be compared with that published by Mibie- 

 Edwards and Grandidier, it will be seen that the differences 

 between them fall quite outside the limit of individual varia- 

 tion exemplified by Frolemur simus or by any single species 

 of the Lemuridte known to me. Grniy, indeed, declared that 

 Schlegel had drawn the skull of an example of Prolemur si'mus 

 in mistake for Hapalemur griseus. With this opinion 

 Beddard was disposed to agree, and Jentiidc tried to account 

 for the error of this view by explaining that Schlegel's 

 illustration was inaccurate, apparently because it did not 

 agree with the skulls that he ])Ossessed. Doubtless it did 

 not; but in my opinion Schlegel's figure was exact in all 

 essential points, seeing that it agrees singularly closely with 

 the adult skull in the Society's collection mentioned first on 

 my list in the oj)ening paragraph of this paper. 



Sin'iilarly, the skull of thespecimen that lived in the Gardens 

 from June 1903 to Sept. IDO'l agrees in the main, though not 

 so closely as in the other case, with the skull of II. gn'seus 

 figured by Milne-Edwards and Grandidier. Since these 

 French authors had access to Geoffrey's type of griseus, it 

 must be assumed that the example they identitied as griseus 

 belonged to that form or to olivaceus, which was regarded as 

 the same, and that Schlegel's example was wrongly n ftrrcd 

 to gn'seus. Confirmation of tiiis conclusion was supplied by- 

 Elliot, who also saw the specimens in the Paris Museum, and 

 remarked in connection with Schlegel's illustration : — "This 

 figure is badly drawn, or does not represent the skull of 

 H. griseus. It is altogether too broad, especially the muzzle." 

 From this passage it seems that Elliot was not prepared 

 altogether to accept Jentink's verdict as to the inaccuracy of 



23* 



