1864.] AND DENTITION OF THE LEMURID. 627 
as yet unnamed, which has been recently acquired by the British 
Museum from Dr. Kirk, and which came from the Zambesi, not 
only skins, but a skull of each of these three species being preserved 
in the Museum. It will also include the Otolemur agisymbanus of 
Dr. Coquerel* (which, if distinct from the before-named species, is 
unrepresented in the national collection), and, finally, it must also 
include the Galago monteiri of Mr. Bartlett} (the Callotus monteiri 
of Dr. Gray{). The skin of the type specimen of this species is in 
the possession of Mr. Monteiro, but he has presented the skull to 
the Museum of the Royal College of Surgeons. 
These species agree well together, and, if they merit a distinct sub- 
generic name, the term Ofolemur (proposed by Dr. Coquerel in 1859 
for his O. agisymbanus) has, I believe, the claim of priority. Dr. 
Coquerel’s species agrees with the others in all those points which 
the immature condition of the individual described allowed to be as- 
certained, and differs from them only as a young specimen might be 
expected to differ. 
The species composing the subgenus Galago (Otolemur) differ 
from the rest of the Galagos by their larger size and in having the 
muzzle more produced, so that the length from the front margin of 
the orbit to a line drawn at right angles to the long axis of the cra- 
nium, and passing through the anterior extremity of the praemaxilla, 
exceeds the distance between two parallel lines (also drawn at right 
angles to the long axis of the cranium), one passing through the 
most anterior and the other through the most posterior part of the 
brim of the orbit. In all the other Galagos this proportion is re- 
versed, and (when the skull is viewed laterally) the antero-posterior 
extent of the opening of the orbit exceeds that of the muzzle. 
The angle of the mandible is produced downwards § as well as 
backwards, in a marked manner. The last upper molar has mostly 
three, but sometimes four tubercles; the last inferior molar is either 
quadricuspidate or quinquecuspid. Probably the tarsus is not so 
long in proportion to the tibia as in the smaller Galagos, but I have 
not been able to observe any part of the osteology of these species 
except the skull. A representation, however, of the tarsus and tibia 
of this subgenus is given by M. de Blainville by mistake for that of 
the Aye-Aye||. The skull and external form of the same species, 
G. (Otolemur) crassicaudatus, are represented by Dr. Peters{], G. 
(0.) agisymbanus by Dr. Coquerel**. The skull of G. (O.) garnettii 
* Revue et Magasin de Zoologie, vol. xi. p. 457, plates 17 & 18 (1859). I 
think it probable that Dr. Kirk’s Zambesi specimen may be specifically identical 
with this, and that both are but varieties of Galago ( Otolemur) crasstcaudatus. 
+ Proce. Zool. Soe. 1863, p. 231, pl. xxvuir. 
t Ibid. p. 145. 
§ Least so in Galago (Otolemur) monteiri. 
| Ostéographie, Lemur, pl.5. This mistake was first suspected by Professor 
Owen, and finally, on his suggestion, ascertained by M. Gervais (see Professor 
Owen’s Memoir on the Aye-Aye, Trans. Zool. Soe. vol. v. p. 83). The tarsus is 
reproduced in pl. 21. fig. 23. 
4| Reise nach Mossambique, pls. 2 & 4. 
** Toc. cit. 
