248 Mr. R. I. Pocock on 



that of late years two genera only have been admitted — 

 namely, Hapale, which has abnormal lower incisor teeth, and 

 Leontocehus or Midas, in which these teeth are normal. 



In 1912, however, Elliot ('A Review of the Primates,' i. 

 pp. 179-233) grouped the species as follows : — 



1. Genus Seniocebus, Gray, for hicolor (type), martinsi, 



tneticulosus. 



2. Genus Cercopitlieciis, Ofvonov ., ior midas {typo), ursulus, 



rujimanus, 



3. Genus Leontocehus, Wagn. (type, chrysomelas). 



Subgen. a. Marikina, Reich., io): chri/somelas, rosalia, 



leonina. 

 Subgen. h. Tamarimis, Trt., for labiafus, mystax, 



devillei, illigeri, imperatoVy apiculatus, peVea^as, 



etc. 



4. Genus (Edipomidas, Reich., for osdipus (type), geoffroyi. 



5. Geuus CaUithrix, Erxl., fov jacckus, pem'cillata, argen- 



tata, leucopus, aurita, pygmcea, and many others 

 usually referred to the genus Hapale. 



With a few modifications in the arrangement of the species 

 and in nomenclature, this classification is a compromise 

 between Gray's, published in 1870, and Trouessart's, pub- 

 lished in 1899. In the matter of nomenclature, the chief 

 points to notice are the use of Cercopithecus, Gronov., for 

 midas, of Callitlirix for jacchus, and tiie selection of chryso- 

 melas as the type of Leontocehus. The characters used for 

 differentiating the genera and subgenera are those supplied 

 principally by the degree of hairiness of the face, head, and 

 neck ; but no characters are cited for distinguishing Senio- 

 cehus from (Edipomidas * or Cercopithecus from Leontocehus. 

 Hence it may be inferred that the genera, as defined, have no 

 secure basis, and it cannot be admitted that the classification 



* lu spite of one's personal liking and respect for Dr. Elliot, it is 

 necessary to explain as a warning to the unwary that he was quite unequal 

 to the task of monographing the Primates, or of making even a present- 

 able attempt at it. That he had no real acquaintance with the genera 

 and species of the order is shown in the present instance by his describing 

 the very well-known Pinche marmozet {(Edipomidas cedipus, Linn.) as a 

 new species named Seniocebus meticulosus — that is to say, he diagnosed 

 the same species under two different names and referred it to two distinct 

 genera within a few pages of his monograph. Moreover, the figure of 

 the skull he published to illustrate the dental cliaracters of Cidlitlirix 

 {Hapale) contradicts the generic diagnosis — which, by the way, is itself 

 wrong, — because the species leucopus is not a Callithrix at all, but, 

 according to Elliot's system, should have been referred to Seniocebus or 

 Cercopithecus or Leontocehus, I know not which. 



