350 Mr. R. I. Pocock 07i the 



In Iloeveii's figure the superior view of the cranium is 59, 



the hiteral view is 63. Ifc may be noted that in M.-Edwards^s 



figure of the skull of griseus the measurements coincide, as 



should be the case, both from the lateral and superior aspects. 



Turning to Jentink's text, we find it stated that sixteen 



adult skulls measured 61 mm. in total length and 42 in width 



across the z_ygomata. They are thus considerably smaller 



than the skull of griseus figured by M. -Edwards, which i& 



73 ram. long and 48 broad, while my olivaeeus is 70 mm» 



long and 49 broad. Clearly, therefore, Jentink's skulls were 



considerably smaller than the one depicted by Milne-Edwards 



and than the one I have described as olivaeeus. This suggests 



the possibility of j\Iilne-Ed\vards having described a skull of 



olivaeeus as griseuSj^ coiwso, he might very well liave adopted^ 



seeing that he regarded olivaeeus merely as a variety of griseus. 



Again, if the specimen figured by Jentink be a true sample 



of the sixteen lie had for examination, they all differ from my 



olivaeeus and Milne-Edwards''s griseus in having a very much 



thinner postorbital bar. This, however, bke the smaller size, 



may be a matler of age. Moreover, it will be noticed that 



the temporal crests are subparallel, showing scarcely any sign 



of convergence as far back even as the interparietal region,. 



whereas in ray olivaeeus and M.-Edwards^s^/i^'e«s these ridges 



coalesce and form a fairly strong sagittal crest over the 



middle line of the parietal region. 



But, whether Jentink's skulls represent a form distinct 

 from M. -Edwards's griseus^ or are merely less well-developed 

 individuals of the same species, it is quite clear they are not 

 referable to the same form as the one I have named schlegeli. 

 They are too long and narrow, have very slender postorbital 

 bars, and the frontal bones are depressed as in my skull of 

 olivaeeus. 



There is no occasion to publish a figure of the type-skull 

 of II. sehl&geli, since it is in almost punctilious agreement 

 with SchlegePs illustration, which shows the inflation of the 

 mastoid, the sinuous curvature and suborbital salience of the 

 malar arch, the thickness of the postorbital bar, the large 

 orbits, the cranial width, the curvature of the upper profile, 

 the shortness of the muzzle, etc. One rather marked difference 

 in tiie tip of the muzzle may be explained, I suspect, by the 

 cutting away of this part of the skull in iSchlegel's example 

 when it was removed from the skin. The incisor teeth are 

 missing, as others have remarked, and this defect suggests 

 that a portion of the premaxilla may have been cut away. 

 If so, the ends of the nasals may have been truncated at the 

 same time. This, howeverj is merely a suggestion. lu the 



