622 MR. ST. GEORGE MIVART ON THE CRANIA_[Nov. 22, 
differ both from C. milii and from M. myowxinus, M. minor, and M. 
pusillus ; so that I have been almost inclined to propose for it a new 
generic name. 
The skull has the facial part prolonged, the distance from the an- 
terior end of the preemaxilla to the hinder border of the orbit very 
much exceeding the distance from that hinder border to the posterior 
extremity of the cranium—instead of being about equal to it, as in 
C. milii. The upper surface of the muzzle presents a marked antero- 
posterior convexity ; and the mandible, when viewed laterally, has its 
inferior margin very strongly concave. Its angle is produced back- 
wards, but not downwards; it is sharper than in Cheirogaleus, but 
not so sharp as in Microcebus. The malar foramen is absent or mi- 
nute. The palate is slightly prolonged backwards, the most anterior 
point of its hinder margin being posterior to the hinder edge of the 
last molar. The posterior palatine foramina are large, as are also 
the preemaxillee, which join the nasals for more than a quarter of their 
(the nasals’) length. ‘The upper incisors are much in advance of 
the canines, and the preponderance of the anterior over the posterior 
pair is very great, in which respect, as also in the four preceding 
points, this species resembles the Microce6i. 
The upper canines are large ; but the first upper premolar is a very 
characteristic tooth, being produced and elongated like a second 
canine; indeed it exceeds in vertical extent the second and third 
upper premolars more than the true canine exceeds them in Hapa- 
lemur, and is longer in proportion to the second upper premolar than 
in any other species of the family, although, as has been stated, M. 
typicus has a canine-like first upper premolar approaching in deve- 
lopment that of this species. 
The second and third upper premolars have each but one large 
external cusp, and are about equal in vertical extent (judging from M. 
de Blainville’s figure, the second upper premolar not having come into 
place in the British Museum skull), though the third has a larger 
talon internally. 
The first upper molar greatly exceeds the third premolar in size, 
and differs from it in having two nearly equally developed external 
cusps. If has also a large antero-internal cusp connected with the 
postero-external one by an oblique ridge. The postero-internal cusp 
is exceedingly minute and rudimentary. The second upper molar 
quite resembles the first in size and form; but the third is smaller 
than the two preceding, and its postero-internal cusp is quite obsolete. 
It exceeds, however, the third premolar in size; and the difference 
between the latter and the first molar in this respect is great, thus 
agreeing with the Microcebi, and differing from Hapalemur and, as 
we shall see, from the Galagos. Indeed in all the above-mentioned 
points the molars of De Blainville’s L. furcifer resemble those of 
Microcebus ; but there is a more strongly developed cingulum outside 
all the upper molars. 
Tn the lower jaw the incisors and canines (which have the similarity 
in form and position common in the Lemuride) are extremely long, 
so much so as quite to equal in length the mandibular symphysis. 
