1865.] DR. J. E. GRAY ON NEW SPECIES OF HAPALE. 733 
2. ATELES CUCULLATUS. 
Fur very long and flaccid, blackish silvery grey; the crown and 
nape, the hands, and feet black ; sides of the rump blackish ; hair of 
the crown very long, forming a large hood expanding over the eye- 
brows ; face reddish, large; orbits black. 
Hab. ? British Museum. 
The colour of the back is produced by the intermixture of a 
nearly equal quantity of very long blackish and grey hairs; the hairs 
of the crown and the hands and feet are short and black to the base. 
3. ATELES FUSCICEPS, Fraser, MS., 1848. 
Black ; hairs rather long, shining, crisp, some of the longer ones 
of the back with indistinct brown tips; crown of the head rusty- 
brown ; hands stout. 
Hab. South America. British Museum. 
Received from the Museum of the Zoological Society. 
The fourth species belongs to the group that has the inside of the 
legs and the under part of the belly white, of which 4. belzebuth is 
the type. In that species the underside of the tail is white in all the 
specimens we possess, while in the one now described the underside 
of the tail is black at the upper part. But the present species is 
at once distinguished from that and all the other dteles I have seen 
by the thickness, softness, and length of the fur. I therefore pro- 
pose to call it 
4. ATELES VELLEROSUS, Sp. nov. 
Black, loins rather browner; head, outside of the limbs, the 
upper and lower surface of the tail deep black ; throat, chest, belly, 
and inside of the limbs greyish white; hair very abundant, soft, 
and flaccid ; thumb none. 
Hab —Brazil?— 
The white on the inside of the arms does not approach so near the 
hands as in A. delzebuth ; and the fur on the head and body is much 
longer, and spreads out in all directions. 
2. Notice or some New Species or Marmoset Monkeys 
(Hapate anp Mipas). By Dr. J. Epw. Gray, F.R.S., 
V.P.Z.S., ETC. 
The species of the American Monkeys are extremely difficult to 
distinguish, and perhaps the Marmosets are as difficult as any; at 
least, if we are to judge by the works of preceding zoologists, they 
must be so. Some have formed them into a multitude of species, 
every slight variation being regarded as a species; others, as Lesson, 
who only worked from books, have reduced them to a small number. 
In doing this, they have evidently been misled by the descriptions, 
and have placed together species that they would never have united if 
they had seen them in life or ina museum. I have been naming a few 
