612 MR. ST. GEORGE MIVART ON THE CRANIA_ [Noy. 22, 
the species of Lemuroid animals and describing some new species) 
which was read before the Zoological Society in April 1863, has 
called attention to various details connected with the dentition and 
cranial structure of many species of Lemuride. Finally, Professor 
Huxley, in June last, in his careful aud elaborate description of a 
great part of the anatomy of Arctocebus calabarensis (also read before 
the Zoological Society), noticed incidentally several very significant 
details regarding the dentition of the larger part of the family. 
But much confusion still hangs over the definition and arrange- 
ment of the smaller forms of Lemuride—so much so, that any con- 
tribution tending towards the elucidation of these obscurities may 
perhaps be considered not altogether useless. 
The genus Hapalemur (established by M. Isidore Geoffroy St.- 
Hilaire*) is one about which, fortunately, there can be no doubt or 
ambiguity whatever. 
It is represented in the national collection by two fine skins which 
were described by Dr. Sclater+ under the name Hapalolemur griseus. 
A skull, extracted from one of them, is also preserved in the British 
Museum. The Lemur griseus of Geoffroy St.-Hilaire undoubtedly 
belongs to this genus (as Dr. Gray has determined), and also the 
Cheirogaleus griseus of Van der Hoeven, whe has given an admirable 
representation of the skull and dentitiont. M. Gervais has also 
figured the dentition and external form §. 
“Dr. Gray gives as ERAraCh® of this genus :— Feet short and 
broad ; cutting teeth =", the upper ones behind the other on each 
side, crowded on the sade of the canine. Ears short and hairy. 
Tail elongate, hairy. Hinder limbs much longer than the front 
ones.” 
In addition to these characteristics, however, other points of struc- 
ture separate this form, in a very marked manner, both from the 
Lemur milii of M. de Blainville (with which it is associated by Van 
der Hoeven) and from De Blainville’s Lemur furcifer (which is placed 
in the same genus with it by Dr. J. A. Wagner||), and indeed from 
every other genus4] of the family to which it belongs. 
The skull has the facial portion short, the cranium rounded and, 
as in Lemur, widest between the posterior roots of the zygomata. 
There is on each side a small but distinct paroccipital process, 
which is laterally compressed and pointed at its extremity. In the 
only skull I have had the opportunity of examining, that at the 
British Museum, the sutures were remarkably obliterated, the nasal 
and the naso-maxillary sutures being all but undistinguishable. The 
preemaxilla, however, appears to be exceedingly small, so much so as 
* Catalogue Méthodique, at 1851, p. 74. 
+ Proe. Zool. Soe. 1863, p. 1 
¢ Tijdschrift voor Nateostijke Geschiedenis, 1844, pl. 1. fig. la, 0, ¢, d, &e. 
§ Hist. Nat. des Mammiferes, 1854, vol. i. p. 169. 
|| Saugethiere, Supplementband, 5te Abtheilung, 1855, p. 148. 
{| Dr. Dahlbom makes it only a subgenus of Lemur. (Vide ‘Studia Zoologica,’ 
p- 220.) 
