1864. ] AND DENTITION OF THE LEMURID&. 637 
value ; and Dr. Gray has called attention * tothe errors likely to arise 
from placing reliance on such characters as the apparent size and form 
of the ears in stuffed specimens, as also} to the undecided nature of 
such distinctions as “hind legs, ears, and eyes very developed,”’ and 
‘hind legs, ears, and eyes extremely developed,”’ employed by M. 
Isid. G. St.-Hilaire in his Catalogue of Primates. 
But the unsatisfactory results arising from the employment of ex- 
ternal characters alone become manifest when they lead a naturalist 
of such vast experience and acuteness of observation as Dr. Gray to 
separate widely his ‘‘ Callotus”’ ¢ from his Otfogale. Nor can I regard 
as any more tenable the dissociation by him of Microrhynchus from 
Indris and Propithecus, and its approximation to Galago, on similar 
grounds. So far from the shortness of the snout and small size of 
the face, as compared to the cranium proper, in Microrhynchus being 
an important distinction between it and Indris and Propithecus, it is 
just such a difference as we might expect to find between closely allied 
species of Primates of very different size,—the relative size of the 
brain varying inversely with the absolute size of the entire body. 
I doubt whether we have as yet materials sufficient to construct a 
strictly natural arrangement of the genera of Lemuride, but, as far 
as I have the means of judging, think they may best be grouped 
together in the four subfamilies Indrisine, Lemurine, Nycticebine, 
and Galaginine ; and the genera may I think be thus arranged :— 
LEMUROIDEA. 
Indris. 
INDRISINZE...... Propithecus. 
Microrhynchus. 
Lemur. 
Hapalemur. 
LeMURIN#......< Microcebus. 
LEMURIDE .... < | Cheirogaleus? 
| \ Lepilemur. 
Nycticebus. 
Loris. 
| Perodicticus. 
| Arctocebus. 
| GALAGININE.... — Galago. 
Mangepa) 223532: oh AS a Tarsius. 
CHEIROMYIDE ........-...-.-.--.- > Cheiromys. 
NYCTICEBINZ 
Owing to this scarcity of materials, I have not attempted to work 
out the species; I therefore by no means intend to imply that I 
consider all the forms separately enumerated in the following list as, 
* Proc. Zool. Soc. 1863, p. 131. 
t Ibid. p. 129. 
{ In justice to Dr. Gray I must add that he had no means of observing other 
than external characters of Gadago monteiri (his Callotus) when his paper was 
written, the type of the species being then alive, and extremely unwilling to 
allow any examination of his dental structure. 
