248 MR. ST. GEORGK MIVART ON INDRTS DIADEMA. [Mar. 14, 



authorized me to communicate the results of my examination to the 

 Zoological Society. 



Before proceeding to do so, however, I am desirous of correcting 

 an error of nomenclature in my previous communication. The 

 Woolly Lemur is there described under the generic name Micro- 

 rhynchus, which I had adopted because it was the original one pro- 

 posed by M. Jourdan in 1834. Professor Peters, however, has been 

 kind enough to call my attention to the fact that this generic term 

 was at the time of its ])roposal by M. Jourdan already appropriated, 

 it having been employed in the group Coleoptera as long ago as the 

 year 1823. 



Under these circumstances I think the generic name Acahis should 

 have been adopted (as was done by M. Isid. Geoff. St.-Hilaire*), 

 as that term was proposed in 1835t; the other generic designa- 

 tions {Habrocebus of Wagner ;[; and Semnocebus of Lesson §) having 

 both appeared in works which have each on their titlepage the date 

 1840. This question, however, is of little importance, if, as I now 

 believe, both terms must be abandoned. The examination of the 

 skull sent by Dr. Peters has convinced me that sufficient grounds 

 do not exist for the generic separation of the three forms || oi hidri- 

 since, all of which I shall therefore henceforth designate by the old- 

 est^} and very generally received generic name Indris, — the three 

 being respectively 7. brevicauilatus, I. diadema (instead of Propi- 

 tkecus), and I. laniger (instead of Microrhynchus or Avahis). 



The subject of the present communication is, as is well known, as 

 yet a rare animal. Mounted skins, indeed, exist in the British 

 Museum, but no extracted skulls or other bones of the species are 

 preserved in the osteological collections either of that institution or 

 of the College of Surgeons. No adult skull or complete dentition 

 has hitherto been figured ; but the immature condition has been re- 

 presented by De Blainville**. 



I find, as I strongly suspected ff, that the cranium of this species 

 does closely resemble the crania of the other Indrisince ; and, to 

 avoid repetition, it may be understood to correspond completely with 



* Catalogue des Primates, p. 08. 



t Is. Geoff. St.-Hilaire, ' Le9ons de Manimalogie,' published by M. Gervais, 

 p. 23 (1835). 



I Schreber, Suppl. i. p. 257. 



§ Species des Manimiferes, p. 209. 



II This union lias ah-eady been proposed by M. Yinso, who has described a 

 fourth form, under the name Indru (dints; but as scarcely any osteological cha- 

 racters are given, I can only allude to it in the present communication. It may 

 be remarked, however, that if, as is asserted, the tail is somewhat longer than 

 that of tlie common Indri, it so far tends to justify the union of /. brevicmidafiis 

 in one genus with the other Indrisi7}(e (see Ann. des Sc. Nat. xix. p. 253 ; and 

 Revue et Mag. de Zoologie, 1802, p. 494). The muzzle is said to be shorter 

 than in /. hrevicaudatus; but the form of the skull and the dentition appear to 

 be as in that species. 



^ Proposed by Geoff. St.-Hilaire, ' Mem. sur les Makis' (1790), where, how- 

 ever, it is without the final s, which appears in ' Tabl. des Quadrum.' (1812). 

 lUiger's t«rm Lichanofus was proposed in 181 1. 



** Osteographie, Primates, Lenuirs, pis. 8 & 9. 



tt P Z. S. 1800, p. 105. 



