416 Dr. C. W. Andrews on a new Baboon from 
From the comparisons given above, it will be seen that the 
present species differs in numerous points from the related 
living forms. In the case of the fossils also it has been 
shown to differ from the so-called Papio subhimalayanus, 
Meyer, sp., and from Papio falconeri, Lydekker, sp.*. In 
Oreopithecus of the Upper Miocene of Monte Bamboli the 
molars are considerably longer than wide, and Schlosser + 
remarks on their similarity to those of Theropithecus gelada, 
a species to which our fossil also approximates ; but, at the 
same time, there are important differences. Thus, in Oreo- 
pithecus the last upper molar is nearly quadrate in outline 
instead of being much longer than wide, and, lastly, in the 
molars of Oreopithecus the intermediate tubercles and the 
anterior and posterior portions of the cingulum are much 
less developed. Mesopithecus, from the Upper Miocene of 
Pikermi, apart from its much smaller size, differs in many 
respects, especially in the more quadrate outline of its upper 
molars and the fact that the last upper molar is considerably 
smaller than the tooth in front ; in the lower molars there 
is practically no anterior cingulum and the intermediate 
tubercles are scarcely at all developed. . 
Dolichopithecus, described by Depéret } from the Middle 
Pliocene of Rousselon, differs in the smaller size and simpler 
character of the talon of the lower m3, the large size of the 
lower pm;, and the much shorter symphysis of the mandible, 
the horizontal ramus of which is nevertheless deep. 
Libypithecus, described by Stromer§ from the Middle 
Phocene of the Wadi Natrun, differs widely in the relatively 
small size of the cheek-teeth, in the nearly quadrate outline 
of the molars, in which the anterior and posterior portions 
of the cingulum and the intermediate cusps are little 
developed. In fact, Libypithecus, Dolichopithecus, and 
Mesopithecus are all apparently much more nearly related to 
the Semnopithecinz than to the true baboons. <Aulaxinuus, 
described by Cocchi||, seems to be identical with Macacus 
* Lydekker, ‘Siwalik Mammalia, Supplement i. p. 6, pl. i. 
figs. 3, 3a (Paleont. Indica, ser. x. vol. iv., 1886). 
+ Schlosser, “Die Affen Lemuren etc. des europiischen Tertiirs,” 
Beitr. Palaont. Gesterr.-Ung. Bd. vi. (1887) p. 16. 
{ Depéret, ‘‘ Les Animaux pliocénes du Roussilon,” p. 11, Mém. Soe. 
géol. France (Paléont.), mém. 3 (1890). 
§ Stromer, “ Mitteilungen tiber Wirbeltierreste aus dem Mittelpliocin 
des Natrontales (Aigypten),” Zeitschr. deutsch. geol. Gesellsch. Bd. 65 
(1913-14), p. 350. 
| Cocchi, “Su di due Scimmie fossili italiane,” Bol. R. Com. geol. 
Ital. vol. iii. (1872) p. 68. 
