tlie Genera of Hapalidse. 255 



more strongly emarginate than Hapale and Leontocehus^ the 

 postero-snperior angle being prominent and the postero- 

 inferior lamina widely rounded. This I have been able to 

 verify on a living example of M. midas *. 



Tiie chance of error in judging of the form of the ear from 

 dried skins is shown by the skin of the type of Micoella 

 sericea, Gray ( = Hapale cltrysohuca, Wagn.), in the British 

 Museum. This skin was made up for the study collection 

 from a mounted specimen originally exhibited in the gallery, 

 and the ears appear to be like those of CEdipomidas, except 

 for the tufts of hair they carry. Nevertheless, from the 

 original figure and description of the specimen (P. Z. S. 

 1868, p. 257, pi. xxiv.), it is evident that the pinna of the ear 

 was provided in the living animal with a well-developed 

 postero-inferior lamina apparently like that of Hapale jaccJiits. 

 Clearly, therefore, the ears of the dried skin have been 

 mutilated. 



Synonymy of the Genera. 



G-enus Leontocebus, Wagner. 



Leontocehus, "Wagner, in Scbreber's Saug. i. Uebersicht. p. ix (1839 or 

 1840) t ; type chrysomehs, Kuhl. (selected by Elliot). 



Leontopithecus, Lesson, Spec. Mamm. p. 200 (1840) ; type marikina, 

 L.ess. = i-osalia, Liun. 



Marikina, Eeiclienbacb, Vollst. Nat. Affen. p. 67 (1862) ; type rosalia, 

 Linn. 



In addition to L. rosalia and L. chrysomelas^ which differ 

 from all other Hapalidse in their long-palmed, syndactylous 

 hands, this genus probably contains L. leoninus, Humb., a 

 species about which practically nothing is unknown apart 

 from the colour. 



* The importance of this observation lies in the error of determination 

 that Boas (' Ohrknorpel etc. der Saugethiere,' 1912, pi. xxiii. fig. 243) 

 seems to me to have made in figuring the ear of (Edijjomidas cedijms as 

 that of Hapale n/Jiiuanus { = JIystax- midas). At all events, this figure 

 does not represent the ear of any example of Mystax midas, but corre- 

 sponds closely with that of every specimen of Q^diiwmidas cedipus that I 

 have examined. 



t -Elliot, following Palmer, gives 18-39 as the date of this name, pre- 

 Builftkbly on 8herborn's authority (P. Z. S. 1891, p. 587) ; but, although 

 the part of Wagner's edition of Schreber dealing with the monkeys was 

 published, according to Sherborn, in 18.39, it is not obvious that the 

 " Uebersicht " and preface were published till 1840. The name may be 

 given, however, the benefit of the doubt, thus carrying priority over 

 Leontopithecus, 



