8 MESSRS. MURIE AND MIVART ON THE 
upper part of that bifurcation there appears to be no trace. Both the tragus (woodcut, 
fig. 1, no. 6) and antitragus (no. 5) are fairly developed ; of the two the antitragus is 
rather more developed. ‘The fosse of the helix and antihelix (woodcut, fig. 1, nos. 2 
and 4) are broad and flat; the fossa of the concha (no. 7) is broad and deep. 
The appearance of the ear in Microcebus as figured by Peters’ is not unlike 
Galago’s; that author only says the helix widens tolerably opposite to the antihelix, 
so that the anterior part of the latter is hidden. The transversely wrinkled character 
of the pinna in his delineation seems to indicate mobility and power of folding it as in 
Galago. 
In Galago (woodcut, fig. 2, Pl. IL. fig. 3, and PI. III. fig. 5) the conditions are essentially 
similar; but the anterior fold of the helix is much smaller and less marked, while the 
fossa between the helix and antihelix just above the antitragus assumes more the form 
of a pit (no. 2*). 
The greater size of the ear is mainly produced by the much greater extension of the 
fossee of the helix and antihelix, together forming a uniform concave expansion (nos. 2 
and 4) traversed by faintly marked transverse lines, which become transverse grooves 
when the ear is contracted in the way before noticed. 
In Nycticebus tardigradus (woodcuts 3 & 4) the general form of the ear, as before 
said, resembles more that of Lemur than that of Galago. But the anterior fold of the 
helix is less marked than in Lemur, and the fossa between the helix and antihelix, where 
they diverge, is more enclosed and pit-like (fig. 4, no. 2*), 
A remarkable character by which it differs from these genera is the presence and 
large development of a horizontal fold (woodcut, fig. 4, no. 3*), which appears to answer 
to the upper part of the anterior bifurcation of the human antihelix; though this is not 
so largely developed as the horizontal fold (no. 3) corresponding to the lower branch of 
the same bifurcation in Man. ‘This latter fold is present as in Lemur and Galago; and 
thus between the two prominent, though short, horizontal folds first mentioned there 
is enclosed a deep, but small, fossa of the antihelix (woodcut, fig. 4, no. 4), having quite 
a pouch-like appearance. 
The tragus and antitragus are so small as to be almost obsolete. 
In Arctocebus a similar condition obtains as to the fossa and fold of the antihelix’. 
Tarsius* approaches the form of ear possessed by Galago and Microcebus; the tragus 
appears, however, to be relatively more marked ; but the pit (=2*) above the antitragus 
is wider and shallower than in Galago. 
Burmeister acutely observes that the peculiarities of structure in the ear of Tarsius 
are not strictly confined to it, but partly exist in Bats and in Rodents. 
‘ Reise nach Mossambique, 1852, Siiugethiere, pl. iii. p. 15. 
> Huxley, P. Z. 8. 1864, pp. 317, 318, fig. 1, a,b. He speaks of these “pranches of the antihelix as “ the 
two singular transverse ridges,” and quotes a previous description by Dr. John Alexander Smith, Roy. Phys. 
Soe, Edin, April 25, 1860. * Burmeister, op. cit. p. 7, pl. i. 
