1864. ] AND DENTITION OF THE LEMURID. 635 
According to these representations, the dental series appear remark- 
ably uniform in vertical extent when the skull is viewed laterally, the 
canines being moderately produced, and the premolars very evenly 
developed, recalling the condition presented by Hapalemur. 
When the grinding-surfaces of the teeth are surveyed, a great re- 
semblance to Indris is evident, and, excepting the small size of the 
upper incisors, the structure of the teeth appears to be much as in 
that genus; and, as far as can be ascertained from the representation 
of the immature dentition given by M. de Blainville, Propithecus also 
exhibits a great similarity. But on these genera, on account of want 
of materials, it is not my present intention to comment. 
And now having thus reviewed some of the cranial and dental cha- 
racters of the various genera of Lemuride, it remains to endeavour 
by the help of these characters to define and arrange the component 
groups. 
But before doing so I may remark that the more carefully the whole 
of the Primates are studied, the more do the differences in structure 
become manifest between the Lemur-like* animals and all the higher 
members of the order. 
Professor Huxley, in his last Hunterian Course of Lectures, called 
attention to the great differences between these groups, and to the 
much wider interval between the Simiade and the Lemuride, than 
between the former and the Anthropodide, enumerating at the same 
time the many marked characters separating those groups. Professor 
Van der Hoeven‘, at the Meeting of the British Association in 1860, 
had before noticed many of these distinctive characters. 
I have long entertained the conviction, which recent researches, 
especially those of Professor Huxley, have strongly confirmed and 
strengthened, that these two groups constitute two very natural sub- 
orders. 
Wonderful as is the chasm separating Man, physiologically consi- 
dered, from the highest Apes, I am yet unable to see how it can pos- 
sibly be denied that, as regards form and structure (attention being 
especially paid to essential, as distinguished from adaptive characters), 
he is more nearly related even to the Marmoset, than is the Marmo- 
set to any Lemur-like animal whatever. I propose, then, to divide 
the Primates into two suborders—the first to include Man and all 
the Apes, Monkeys, and Baboons, as well as the Marmosets ; and for 
this first suborder I venture to suggest the name Anthropoidea; the 
second to contain the Lemurs, Slow Lemurs, Galagos, the Tarsier, 
and the Aye-Aye, and to be called Lemuroidea. 
To the remarkable characters above referred to, as enumerated by 
Professor Huxley in his recent course, I have to add that, as far as I 
* It would be exceedingly convenient to have a vernacular general name to 
designate these creatures, and another forthe higher Primates, exclusive of Man,— 
if, for example, we were to call all the latter (from the Gorilla to the Marmoset 
inclusive) “Apes,” and for the Lemur-like Primates to employ the convenient 
Germanism “‘ Half-apes.”’ 
t Vide Report of the 30th Meeting of the British Association (1860), London, 
1861, Trans. Sect. pp. 134-186, 
