344 Mr. R. I. Pocock on the 



This i^aper is based iirimarilj upon an examination of these 

 examples. 



The two species above named have quite an extensive 

 literature. Skulls assioued to //. grhe.ns have been figuretl 

 on several occasions. 'J'o these and to tlie specimens iu the 

 Society's collection I shall revert later. 



Good tif^ures of the skull of //. siniii.t have been published, 

 notably by Gray (P. Z. S. IbTO, pp. 829-830, fi-s. 1-4), by 

 Jeutink (Notes Leyd. Mus. vii. 1885, p. 33), by JMilne- 

 Edwards and Grandidier (Hist. Nat. Madno;. Mamni., x\tlas 

 ii. pis. cxxii. G & 11, 1890-1896), and by Elliot (Mon. 

 Primates, i. j)l. xvii., 1912); and it may be noted that these 

 figures attest no structural variations of moment, suggesting 

 that more than one form has been described under the name 

 siniKs. As I shall presently attempt to show, this is not the 

 case with skulls ascribed to //. griseus. 



The fToneric name Jlapaleniur, proposed in 1851 by 

 I. GeotlVoy for tiie species then known as Lemur griseus^ 

 met with universal and unchallenged acceptance until 1912, 

 when Elliot, misled by a sui)erticial inspection of the text, 

 substituted lilioxicthus — emended to Mi/oxicehus — on the 

 alleged, but entirely enoneous, grounds that Lesson in 1840 

 had given the latter title to the type-species of Ilapalemur. 

 It is quite true that the first species cited under Mioxicehus 

 was named griseus; but it is equally and obviously true that 

 the diagnoses, both generic and specilic, oi Mioxicehus griseus 

 have no a)>plicabiLity to Hapdleinur griseus. On the contrary, 

 they fit tolerably closely the species for which they were 

 intended, namely, Chirogaleus major, then known as milii. 

 It is possible that Lesson had at the time a specimen of a 

 different but closely allied sjjecies of C/iirogalnis before him ; 

 but until evidence on that head is forthcoming Mioxicehus 

 griseus must stand as a synonym of Chirogaleus major. 

 Uapaleniur consequently resumes its former place in litera- 

 ture *. 



* Anotlier uiniecessnrj cbanpre introduced by Elliot iuto tlie nomen- 

 clature of lemurs is the substitution of the new name Altililemur for 

 Opoleniur on the alleged grounds that Gray applied the latter generic 

 term to Chirogaleus milii. That is an incorrect interpretation of the 

 facts. Opolemur (P. Z. 8. 1870, pp. 853 -8o4) was proposed by Gray for 

 a species represented in the British Museum by specimens which he 

 wrongly identified as Chiror/aleus milii. That his identification was 

 erroneous is shown by the diagnosis and figures. The characters, stated 

 and illustrated, of his Opolemur do not fit CJiiror/aleus ; hence the former 

 cannot be a synonym of the latter, as Elliot asserted, and Opolemur must 

 be restored to use," if the genua it designates is maintainable, with Altili- 

 lemur as its synonym. 



I 

 I 



