1864. | AND DENTITION OF THE LEMURID2&. 615 
nus*, A skull in the British Museum (which came from the Zoo- 
logical Society’s collection, and which is noticed and figured in Dr. 
Gray’s memoir above quoted, under the name Lepilemur murinus) 
Microcebus minor (Lepilemur murinus of Gray). Scale, twice nat. size. 
certainly, as Dr. Gray remarks, “‘ agrees well’’ with Dr. Peters’s figure. 
It is in fact most undoubtedly of the same genus. The skin from 
which it was extracted, unfortunately, does not appear to be in the 
national collection ; but there are two others considered by Dr. Gray 
to belong to the same species (though labelled Galago minor), and 
the dentition, in the only one of them in which the teeth are visible, 
agrees well, as far as it can be observed, with that of the skull just 
alluded to. Another small Lemur preserved in spirits in the British 
Museum (which also came from the Zoological Society’s collection, 
and was named by Mr. Waterhouse+ Microcebus pusillus, but which 
is labelled Cheirogaleus smithii, and described by Dr. Gray under 
that namef) also closely resembles Dr. Peters’s Microcebus, the only 
difference in dentition which could be observed depending, perhaps, 
on the animal not having reached maturity. 
In this form the ears are large and the tarsus rather elongated. 
Unfortunately I have had no opportunity of ascertaining, myself, the 
proportions of the tarsal § bones ; but this section of the foot appears 
to equal about one-third the length of the tibia. 
With regard to the skull, Dr. Peters notices the absence of any 
inflation of the mastoidal region of the periotic, the prolongation of 
* Reise nach Mossambique, p. 13, and plates 3 & 4. figs, 6-9. 
+ Cat. of Mas. of Z.8., 2nd edit. p. 12, no. 89 
t Proc. Zool. Soc. 1863, p. 143. 
§ ‘‘ Die Linge des Fersenbeins ist gleich einem Drittel des Unterschenkels.” 
—Reise nach Mossambique, p. 17. 
