on the Mammalia in the Zoological Museum. 109 



of generick distinction, in so restricted a group as that of the Apes. The 

 sjrndactyle structure of the hind-foot of S. syndactyla might as well be se- 

 lected for that purpose. We do not, it is well known, join in the indis- 

 criminate cry raised in this country against the institution of new generick 

 groups. We are ourselves perhaps in some measure to be considered 

 delinquents in this respect. But we are advocates for moderation ; and 

 wish such groups to be established only where separation is necessary 

 in consequence of excess in the nimiber of species, or when it may 

 serve to point out more strongly some striking modification of character. 

 In most groups of the Mammalia we do not consider that this neces- 

 sity exists so much as in the older groups of Birds and Insects, where 

 hundreds of species are crouded together in indiscriminate confusion. 

 And the minuter differences, now advanced as discriminating genera 

 among the former animals by the Continental natui'alists, certainly strike 

 us as carrying the practice to the extreme. 



We have to add, while on the subject of the j^pes, that the examination 

 of the specimen of Simia Lar, already alluded to as presented to the 

 Society by General Hardwicke, which vras fortunately preserved entire 

 in spirit, has enabled us to ascertain that the species possesses the vermi- 

 form appendix to the ccBcum, which M. Blumenbach erroneously asserts* 

 to be found only in the Simia Satyrus among the Simice. We conjecture 

 that this character will be found to exist in all the true Simice. 



Gen. Nasalis, Geoff. 



A fine specimen of that singular species Simia nasica, Linn., {JVasalis 

 larvatus, Geoff",,) is in the Society's collection. It was brought from 

 Borneo by a collector, who had been sent to that island by Sir Stamford 

 Raffles during his residence at Bencoolen. Two specimens of a Monkey 

 almost equally distinguished by the extension of the nose, but having 

 that member turned up, instead of being recumbent, were brought from 

 the same country, and in the same collection. From the difference in the 

 shape of the nose, and more particlarly from the difference in the facial 

 angle, we are inclined to consider these latter specimens as belonging to 



* See Mr. Lawrence's Translation of Blumenbach, re-edited by Mr. Coulson, 

 1827, p. 115. 



