1864.] AND DENTITION OF THE LEMURID&. 621 
to M. de Blainville, C. milij agrees with M. myowinus and M. pusillus 
(as doubtless with the other Microcebi) in the number of lumbar 
vertebrae. 
Another well-marked and easily distinguished species (placed in 
the genus Cheirogaleus by Dr. J. A. Wagner and by M. Isid. G. St.- 
Hilaire*) is the Lemur Surcifer of M. de Blainville, the Lepilemur 
Sureifer of Dr. Gray+. “Tt is represented in the British Museum by 
a fine skin of an almost adult individual, The skull has been ex- 
tracted, and is preserved in the osteological collection ; unfortunately, 
Microcebus Surcifer. Scale, twice nat. size. 
however, the posterior part of the cranium and the back walls of the 
orbits, together with the angles of the mandible, are wanting. 
This species has large, long ears, and is readily distinguished by its 
black dorsal stripe bifurcating on the occiput. It is represented (not 
very well, however) in M. Gervais’s ‘Mammiféres,’ and also (under 
the name ‘Cheirogale de Madagascar’) in Dr. Chenu’s Encyclo- 
pédie d’Histoire Naturelle’ The skull and dentition are figured by 
M. de Blainvillet. 
Unfortunately I am again unable to give particulars as to the con- 
formation of the tarsal bones in this Lemur ; but the foot is certainly 
rather elongated, and the whole of the tarsus appears to exceed one- 
third the length of the tibia. The skull and dentition, however, 
* Catalogue des Primates, p- 77. + Proe. Zool. Soe. 1863, p. 145. 
{ Ostéographie, Lemur, pl. 7. 
