^y/«(i-.> >ind Sulfij>€Cie3 of }fcnkfy», 209 



Itmst'l {VJi,2 ; zyjjomatic width 67(5; Icnj^th of nasals ll-.*i ; 

 palatal lrii<;tli .'J ) : ienjitlj of iipprr inohir scries 27*1); length 

 of niandihlc (5S* I ; lenj^th of louiT ninlar scries .'jr'J. 



'/>//«' in Mriiisli Miiscnni, no. 71). 11. 'J,\.\)\)7t. 



Several specimens of tliis species from the southern part 

 of Malacca are in the Mritish Museum, rescmhliiiff each 

 other in colour, much darker than examples from the Straits 

 SfttlcnuMits and lower part of the I'eninsnla, and more lii^c 

 /*. ohscuia, hut without the nuchal patch and not so dark in 

 colour. These examples had {jonc heretofore under the name 

 of alhocimreus, l)esmarcst; but that supp(jsed species was 

 8tatcd to 1)0 on the upper parts, including " cj aulcs, flancs, 

 faccextcrne du hautdcs hras et des cuisscs, d'un gkis claikk ; 

 milieu du dos d'un yris uu pen plus fonc(i," w hich in nowise 

 describes any Sunuitran J'reshi/fis I have ever seen, and 

 comes nearer to J', ai/i/u/a from Java than any other. 

 Eydoux and ^'oiilcyet in their work on the voyage of the 

 ' JU)nite' desciiljc and figure a monkey uuder the name of 

 albocinereus, Dcsmarest, but which agrees in no respect with 

 the description that author gives of his species, and is evi- 

 dently the Sci/inojiit/icciis vf/ncurus Reid (icscribtd in 18 i7, 

 lour years previously. These authois state that Desuriicst's 

 specimen was still in the Paris Museum, hut as they do not 

 say it was the original of the figure in their plate, they must 

 have had it drawn from another specimen, not the tvpe. 

 Now, rather in contradiction of Messrs. i-lydoux and Soulcyet, 

 comes forward Isidore Geoffroy Saint liilaire, who, in his 

 (Catalogue of the Primates, 1H.">|, p. 12, under Si'innupitliecus 

 obsrurus makes the following statement regarding the 

 S. albocinereus of Eydoux and Soulcyet : " Deciits et figures 

 dans la relation du voyage de la Bonile sous le nom de 

 Senin. albocinereus le? Autcurs ayant cm relrouvcr dansccttc 

 espece le Ctrcop. olLo-c nercus de ^I. Dcsmarest, espece etublis 

 sans (loiite p<tr suite d'une confusion ile notes, et qui est a 

 retraueher." The italics arc nunc. No mention, of course, 

 is made, after the above statement, of any specimen whieli 

 had served as Desmarest's typu being in the Museum, as he 

 did of others throughout liis catalogue that were still in the 

 eullcction, and if it had been preserved he would certainly 

 have known it, and we must therefore presume that Messrs. 

 Eydoux and Soulcyet emd when tlu-y stated that the type of 

 albocinereus was in the Museum. The matter then resolves 

 itself into this, that Demarest's description of albocinereus 

 does not apply to any known species of monkey in Sumatra, 

 nor can it, with auy certainty, be given to any monkey from 

 any other locality, and is therefore, in the absence of any 



