SIMIAD.E. 517 



on a merely doubtful point, add to the list of confusing synonyms, by 

 changing the specific name (Cynosurus), applied by common consent to the 

 Malbrouck, for another, without any definite advantage. Buffon regards 

 the Malbrouck as identical with the Simia Faunus of Linnaeus (Syst. Nat. 

 ed. x. p. 26) which is founded on a figure given by Clusius in his Exotica, 

 taken, not from any animal (for the animal itself Clusius never saw), but 

 altered from a painting. To this figure (Cercopithecus Primus Clusii 

 Exotic, p. 371) Buffon also alludes, and as he considers the Simia Faunus 

 of Linnaeus to be referable to his Malbrouck, so does he equally consider 

 this figure. It cannot, however, be doubted that the figure in question is 

 of no authority ; and that the Simia Faunus of Linnaeus will not stand as the 

 accredited title of the present species. We know not on what information 

 Buffon assigns Bengal as the native country of the Malbrouck, nor yet the 

 grounds of his assertion that such is its name among the inhabitants of 

 that country. The Macaque and the Egret Monkey, he observes, are 

 "natives of the southern countries of Africa;" the Malbrouck and Chinese 

 Bonnet Monkey are from Bengal. Into the origin of errors so glaring it is 

 useless too curiously to inquire. Information on points of locality, when 

 Buffon wrote, was neither so precise nor so attainable as in the present day. 

 The Malbrouck, as is now known, is a native of Western Africa, whence, 

 as already said, one of the specimens in the museum of the Zoological So- 

 ciety , London, was brought, which died in the menagerie. Desmarest follows 

 Buffon in assigning it to Bengal. Fred. Cuvier, in his Mammalogie 

 (1819), gives a good figure of the species, which he identifies with the 

 Malbrouck of Buffon, and the Simia Faunus of systematic writers. With 

 respect to its identity with the Malbrouck of Buffon there can be only one 

 opinion, as, indeed, an examination of the specimens in the Paris Museum 

 will prove, and which agree in all respects with those in the museum of the 

 Zoological Society, London, of which one specimen (No. 40, in Catal.Mamm. 

 1838) was regarded by Mr. Bennett as identical with the Malbrouck of 

 Buffon, but not of Fred. Cuvier, Mr. Bennett considering F. Cuvier's 

 Malbrouck to be specifically distinct from the animal figured under that 

 name by Buffon. In this point, however, he was certainly mistaken. 

 The specific name of Tephrops, therefore, must sink ; indeed, as Buffon 

 considered his Malbrouck to be the Simia Faunus of the systematic 

 writers, its adoption, granting the specific distinctness contended for, would 

 scarcely be justifiable. 



In retaining the title of Cynosurus, as the specific appellation of the 

 present species, in preference to Faunus, we are influenced by the follow- 

 ing considerations. In the first place, it is the name generally adopted 

 by modern writers ; it is applied to this animal by F. Cuvier, Desmarest, 

 Fischer, and others ; and it was given by Scopoli to the animal which 

 he examined alive, and of which the description is more applicable to 



