350 Mr. R. I. Pocock on (he 



In Iloeven's figure the superior view of the cranium is 59, 

 the l:iteral view is 6S. It may be noted that in M.- Edwards's 

 li>i,ure of the skull of griseus the measurements coincide, as 

 should be the case, both from the lateral and superior aspects. 

 Turning- to Jentiuk's text, we find it stated that sixteen 

 adult skulls measured 61 mm. in total length and 42 in width 

 across the zygomata. They are thus considerably smaller 

 than the skull of grlsms figured by M. -Edwards, which is 

 73 mm. long and 48 broad, while my olivaceus is 76 mm, 

 long and 49 broad. Clearly, therefore, Jentiuk's skulls were 

 considerably smaller than the one depicted by Milne-Edwards 

 and than the one I have described as olivaceus. This suggests 

 the possibility of ]\Iilne-Ed\vards having described a skull of 

 olivitceus as griseus^a course he might very well have adopted, 

 seeing that he regarded olivaceus merely as a variety of griseus. 

 Again, if the specimen ligured by Jentink be a true sample 

 of the sixteen he had for examination, they all differ from my 

 olivaceus and Milne-Edwards''s griseus in having a very much 

 thinner postorbital bar. Tiiis, however, like the smaller size, 

 may be a matter of age. Moreover, it will be noticed that 

 the temporal crests are subparallel, showing scarcely any sign 

 of convergence as far back even as the interparietal region, 

 whereas in my olivaceus and M.-Edwards^s^ri;>'e?<s these ridges 

 coalesce and form a fairly strong sagittal crest over the 

 middle line of the parietal region. 



But, whether Jentink^s skulls represent a form distinct 

 from M. -Edwards's griseus, or are merely less well-developed 

 iiuiividuals of the same species, it is quite clear they are not 

 referable to the same form as the one I have named schlegeli. 

 They are too long and narrow, have very slender postorbital 

 bars, and the frontal bones are depressed as in my skull of 

 olivaceus. 



There is no occasion to publish a figure of the type-skuli 

 of //. schlegelij since it is in almost punctilious agreement 

 with SchlegePs illustration, which shows the inflation of the 

 mastoid, the sinuous curvature and suborbital salience of the 

 malar arch, the thickness of the postorbital bar, the large 

 orbits, the cranial width, the curvature of the upper profile, 

 the shortness of the muzzle, etc. One rather marked difference 

 in the tip of the muzzle may be explained, I suspect, by the 

 cutting away of this part of the skull in tSchlegel's example 

 when it was removed from the skin. The incisor teeth are 

 missing, as others have remarked, and this defect suggests 

 that a portion of the premaxilla may have been cut away. 

 If so, the ends of the nasals may have been truncated at the 

 same time. This, however, is merely a suggestion. In the 



