4 MESSRS. MURIE AND MIVART ON THE 
The trunk is relatively long, laterally compressed, and the abdomen slender'; and no 
deviation is presented in this respect even by that abnormal form Cheiromys’. That 
resemblance to the Rodentia which many have thought could be traced in the Aye-Aye 
is entirely fallacious, as has been recently demonstrated by Professors Owen® and 
Peters *. 
In the very great majority of cases this elongated body is terminated by an elongated 
tail, as in Lemur catta and its congeners; but, as is well known, this appendage is 
obsolete in Loris and Nycticebus, and is very short in Arctocebus and also short in Pero- 
dicticus and Lepilemur. In some Lemurs (e. g. L. niger and I. varius) the tail assumes 
more of a bushy character; this is carried to an extreme in Cheiromys and some Galagos 
(e.g. G. crassicaudatus; see the representation of this animal from a photograph, PI. I. 
fig. 1). 
In all cases the pelvic limb is longer than the pectoral one, and this whether their 
respective extremities (pes and manus) are or are not included’. 
As is well known, certain genera (e.g. Galago and Tarsius) present an elongation of 
the tarsal part of the leg which is altogether peculiar, and no approximation to which 
is possessed by any other order of the vertebrate subkingdom save the sufficiently 
remote Batrachia’®. 
1 In Dr. Peters’s figure of Galugo crassicaudatus (Reise nach Mossambique, Siiugethiere, i. tab. ii.) the 
abdomen is represented so distended, and the apparent line of demarcation between it and the hind limb is so 
imperfect, that we suspect it must have been taken from a badly stuffed specimen. 
2 This-slenderness of the abdomen is well shown in Owen’s memoir referred to, Zool. Trans. vol. y. pls, 16 & 17. 
3 Op. cit. * Chiromys, Berlin, 1866. 
> See St. G. Mivart, Phil. Trans. 1867, p. 382. 
6 What this elongated Lemurine tarsus denotes is one of those questions which might well provoke discussion. 
The singular fact of such a structural resemblance existing between creatures supposed almost as remote in 
habit as in zoological position and affinity, seems at first an inexplicable puzzle, whether on teleological or 
developmental hypotheses. Such, indeed, it did appear to us until, so to speak, our eyes were opened to habits 
in the Galagos which previously we were perfectly unacquainted with, and are not aware that any one hitherto 
has published an account of the same. To Mr. Bartlett, Superintendent of the Society’s Gardens, is due the 
honour of this discovery, and we are indebted to him for permission to incorporate in our Memoir the subjoined 
letter. He also kindly allowed us ample opportunity of studying the movements of the live animal, enabling 
us to depict (see Pl. I. fig. 2) the peculiar attitudes which he himself so ably describes, and which we can 
unhesitatingly corroborate. On the 1st September, 1868, he writes :— 
“* My pear Murre,—You well know that I have long been much interested in the Lemurid, and have pub- 
lished several accounts of the habits of some of them in captivity. While you are at work on the group, 
therefore, I am sure you will be as pleased as I myself was to know what a wonderful and active little fellow 
Garnett’s Galayo is. The other night I took an opportunity of letting one of these interesting animals have 
his liberty in my room, and I assure you I was well repaid by his performance. Judge my utter astonishment 
to see him on the floor jumping about upright like a Kangaroo, only with much greater speed and intelligence, 
The little one sprung from the ground on to the legs of tables, arms of chairs, and, indeed, on to any piece of 
furniture in the room: in fact, he was more like a sprite than the best pantomimist I ever saw. What sur- 
prised me most was his entire want of fear of dogs and cats. These he boldly met and jumped on at once, and 
