1887.] NOMENCLATURE OF INDIAN MAMMALS. C'2.) 



and the East Indies' was published in 1757 at Stockholm; hut 

 there are German and English translations. It appears to me 

 extremely doubtful whether the tufted animal described by Osbeck 

 was not a young Semnopithecus, possibly *S'. mitratus. The de- 

 scripuon certainly suits that animal rather than any Macacus. The 

 habits mentioned by Osbeck are indeed those of a Macacus, not of 

 a Semnopithecus ; but they are evidently derived from hearsay, and 

 not from observation. 



There is a second reference under S. ai/c/ida in the original 

 Linnsean description to " Simla nigra magnitudinis medice, Edw. 

 Av. 221, t. 311.'' The figure and description of Edwards's "iliddle- 

 sized Black Monkey " were probably taken from a Cercopithecus. 



I do not think the term axjyida can with any reasonable proba- 

 bility be applied to the Malay Monkey. 



The name Himia atys is of equally questionable origin. It was 

 given to a young albino monkey that may have been either a Cerco- 

 pithecus or a Macacus. 



Unless some good reason can be found for retaining one of the 

 earlier appellations, it appears probable that Cuvier's name has the 

 be>t claim to stand for the species. 



III. On Macacus rhesus. 



The above name has been very generally adopted for the common 

 Macacus of Northern India, and I believe correctlv. Every now 

 and then, however, this aniinal is called M. enjthraus (Schreber). 

 The name Simla rhesus, as is well known, was given by Audebert 

 in the 'Histoire Natureile des Singes et Maki*,' pidilished in 1/97. 

 A good figure of the animal was given, and the species was identified 

 with the "Macaque a queue courte" of BufFon, Hist. Nat. Supp. 

 vii. p. 56, pi. xiii. 



Now this same figure of Buffon's was copied by Schreber, and the 

 name Simia erythroeu apphed to it. But this plate does not appear 

 amongst the Monkeys in Schreber's ' Siiugthiere,' in vol. i. (1775), 

 nor in the additional plates referred to as belonging to vol. i. in 

 vol. iii. p. 590 (1778), and vol. iv. p. 636 (1792). The plate was 

 published undoubtedly as plate viii. c in Wagner's Supplement 

 (ISiO), and a description was given in the letterpress. The only 

 question is whether any earlier publication took place. The refer- 

 ence to Schreber runs thus, "Schreb. tab. 8. fig. Buflf." Schreber's 

 original plate 8, however, represented Simia mormon, tlie Man- 

 drill. There is, in Wagner's Supplement, no reference to any page 

 as in the case of other species described in Schreber's original work. 

 But the name Simia erythrcea was used long previously on 

 Schreber's authority. The earliest use of it that I have been able 

 to find is in Shaw's ' General Zoology ' (vol. i. p. 33), published in 

 1880. The only reference is " Schreb. Supp.," no number of the 

 plate nor of letterpress being quoted. Another reference is by 

 Geoflfroy (Ann. Mus. xix. p. 101), and many might be quoted. From 

 none, however, can 1 gather that the plite on which the name 



