NovEMBER 26, 1896] 
NATURE 
89 
sciences, on their giving evidence of being able to undertake 
such work with a good prospect of success. Applications are 
considered by the Committee, who recommend to the Council, 
and this body grants a place in the laboratory. Apparatus, 
chemicals, &c., are supplied by the College free of charge, while 
assistance is given by the Superintendent and a staff of laboratory 
servants. 
The examination and reporting on morbid specimens was 
instituted primarily for the Fellows of the College, but in a 
really difficult case assistance is given to any medical man who 
may apply. While the preparation of antitoxic serum was 
undertaken for the Fellows of the College, any supply beyond 
that required by them will be available for other members of the 
profession. 
A REPUTED MALAGASY MONKEY. 
BY far the most important zoological event of the year, so far 
as mammals are concerned, is the discovery in the super- 
ficial deposits of Madagascar of certain remains of an extinct 
monkey-like animal. Of these remains—which include the 
imperfect front portion of a skull, and a considerable part of the 
lower jaw—an illustrated preliminary notice by Dr. C. J. 
Forsyth Major appears in the October number of the Geological 
Magazine. And although the author of that paper may modify 
some of his conclusions in a later and fuller communication, 
the discovery is too important to be passed over without mention 
in this journal. 
The title of the paper—‘‘ Fossil Monkeys from Madagascar ” 
—suggests the impression that all the conclusions and theories 
that have been published in regard to the origin of the Malagasy 
fauna will have to be amended or swept away. But a study of 
the figures and description of the specimen will show that this 
by no means follows. Without entering into structural details, 
it may be mentioned that the skull—so far as its imperfect con- 
dition admits of forming a conclusion—conforms in general 
features with the Anthropoid, as distinct from the Lemuroid, 
type; while the molar teeth are also monkey-like. In the 
upper jaw the dental formula is identical with that of the 
Neotropical Ceézde—that is to say, there are three premolars. 
In the lower jaw there is also a similarity between the Cedzde, 
the number of cheek-teeth being identical. But here the 
resemblance ceases, for the canine is absent, and its function is 
discharged by the anterior premolar, which is enlarged. In this 
respect, as in the number of cheek-teeth, the specimen resembles 
the typical Lemwrzdie ; but the front teeth are different, and the 
premolars are unlike those of either lemurs or monkeys. 
In describing the fossil—under the name of Wesopzthecus— 
the author states that it indicates a distinct family of the Anthro- 
poidea, ‘‘intermediate in some respects between the South 
American Ceézde and the Old World Cercopithecide, besides pre- 
senting characters of its own.” He adds that the following 
general conclusions are suggested by the discovery: ‘‘(1) We 
may look forward in Continental Africa likewise for the dis- 
covery of Tertiary monkeys intermediate between Cedzde and 
Cercopithectde. (2) The recent African Cercopithectde are not 
invaders from the north-east, as has been supposed; on the 
contrary, most, if not all, of the Tertiary monkeys of Europe 
and Asia are derived from the Ethiopian region. The home of 
a part, at least, of the Anthropoidea seems to have been in the 
southern hemisphere. This assumption is corroborated by the 
two facts—that Anthropoidea make their appearance suddenly 
for the first time in the later Tertiary of Europe and Asia, and 
that they are entirely absent from the Tertiary of North 
America.” 
To properly criticise these conclusions would require much 
more space than is allowed by the editor. It may be conceded, 
in the first place, that the specimen undoubtedly indicates a 
distinct family ; whether, however, it is an Anthropoid, appears 
much more doubtful. The presence of a functional lower canine 
is so constant in that group, that I think it may be taken asa 
subordinal character. And in any case the functional disappear- 
ance of that tooth indicates that Mesopithecus is not an ancestral 
type of the existing Anthropoids. Whether the transference 
of the functions of the canine to the anterior premolar 
indicates any affinity with the Lemuroids, or is merely a case of 
parallelism, I am not prepared to say. But it does seem 
probable that the fossil is an offshoot from the original stock 
NU. 1413, VOL. 55 | 
which connected the monkeys with the lemurs. And, so far as 
it goes, it tends to discountenance the view that the Cedzae are 
not genetically connected with the old-world monkeys. 
With regard to the other conclusions of Dr. Major, I believe 
there is good evidence of the occurrence of fossil monkeys in 
the French Phosphorites (although this has never been 
published) ; and it hence appears probable that the ancestors 
of Nesopithecus may have reached Ethiopia with the other 
progenitors of the Malagasy fauna. I would further hazard the 
suggestion that the ancestral South American Ceécde likewise 
reached Ethiopia at the same time, and that they migrated to 
South America in the manner I have suggested in my recent 
volume on the Geography of Mammals for the Santa Crucian 
Ungulates. The supposition of Dr. Major that ‘‘ most, if not 
all, of the Tertiary monkeys of Europe and Asia are derived 
from the Ethiopian region,” does not appear to have sufficient 
evidence for its support. And if it were admitted, we should 
have to account for the absence of true monkeys in Madagascar. 
Probably the Cercopithecede and Simitde reached Ethiopia with 
its antelopes and zebras. Hence there seems no reason, at 
present, for modifying our conclusions as to the origin of the 
Malagasy fauna. 
As it is a somewhat important matter, I may take this 
opportunity of asking—should this meet his eye—the German 
Professor who some years ago showed me at the British Museum 
some monkey-like molar teeth from the French Phosphorites, if 
he would either describe his specimens or communicate with 
me, R. LYDEKKER. 
MICROSCOPIC MARINE ORGANISMS IN 
THE SERVICE OF HYDROGRAPHY. 
T has for a long time been known that the sea abounds in 
microscopic organisms, both animal and _ vegetable. 
Among the former are entomostraca, infusoria, radiolarians, 
foraminifera, as well as larvze of mollusca, radiates, and bryozoa. 
Among the plant-life the mass consists of diatoms, cilio- 
flagellates, flagellates, and certain unicellular chlorophyllaceous 
alge. For these pelagic forms Prof. Hensen has proposed the 
name //ankton, which has been universally accepted. 
Some years ago I examined the samples of vegetable 
plankton collected by the Swedish Arctic expeditions, as well as 
samples from various parts of the tropical seas, and I became 
convinced that certain parts of the oceans are characterised by 
different species. In the year 1893 I spent the summer at the 
west coast of Sweden, where I had the opportunity of examin- 
ing the plankton at the marine biological station of Christine- 
berg, that is to say in a fjord (loch) called Gullmarsfjord. I 
found that in the month of June the plankton consisted mainly 
of cilioflagellates, Ceratzwm tripos being the most common. 
During the last days of the month, however, the plankton 
changed. The water was from that time very rich in entomo- 
straca, and the cilioflagellates became less abundant. At the 
same time the mackerel appeared in the fjord. All my samples 
had been collected at the mouth of the fjord, where the water 
is not yerydeep. In the interior the fjord becomes deeper, as 
is the case also with the Scotch lochs, and I now wished to 
know the character of the plankton at different depths. What 
I hitherto had examined was the plankton of the current, called 
by the Swedish hydrographers the Baltic current, which in the 
spring and summer runs along the Scandinavian coast up to 
Bergen, in Norway. Below that surface current there exists, 
according to the Swedish hydrographers, water with lower 
temperature and greater salinity. In company with Prof. G. 
Théel, and with the aid of his net, which could be closed and 
opened below the water, I made in July an attempt to get 
plankton from different depths of the fjord. We found in the 
cold bottom water very little plankton, some few specimens of 
a large Sagetta and of Calanus jinmarchicus only. At about 
30-40 metres the cilioflagellates (among them Ceratzum 
divergens) were abundant, and on the surface the entomostraca. 
This examination was repeated during the first days of August, 
when I and Dr. Aurivillius had the opportunity of accompanying 
Prof. S. A. Pettersson and Mr. G. Ekman on the hydro- 
graphical expedition which went out at the time. The result 
was the same as before, but from the determination of the 
temperature and the salinity of the water it became clear that 
the plankton had been collected in water differimg in those 
i 
