1867. J MR. ST. GEORGE MIVART ON THE LEMURID.E. 967 



whereas the usual colour of M. pusillus is a very red brown. But 

 all the specimens in the Paris Museum are not alike in colour, and 

 one especially is very pale. The diifereuce in colour alone should 

 not, therefore, I think, prevent the union of C. smithii with M. 'pu- 

 sillus ; but, on account of the incisors, I think it better to keep the 

 two forms distinct for the present, till it is proved that the propor- 

 tions of the incisors are subject to a certain individual variation as 

 they are in Indris brevicaudatus*. 



The specimen in spirits in British Museum, which was named by 

 Mr. Waterhouse " Microcebus pusillus " f (but which is now labelled 

 Cheirogaleus smithii, and has been described by Dr. Gray under that 

 name;};), has the upper incisors subequal, and in all probability was 

 rightly named at first. 



The third form, Cheirogaleus typicus, the typical specimen of 

 which is also in the British Museum, agrees with C. milii of GeofFroy 

 in the caniniform first upper premolar, in the great predominance 

 in size of the first over the second upper incisor, also to all appear- 

 ance in the relative shortness of the tarsus, and, finally, in the short 

 ears. It is described by Dr. Gray§ as "reddish brown; cheeks, 

 throat, and beneath white." 



The Paris specimens, on the other hand, have the underparts 

 white, but the back is of a delicate fawn -brown ; but the difference 

 does not seem to me of such moment as to render it other than 

 probable that C. typicus and C. milii are one and the same species. 

 The fact that the typical specimen of C. typicus is not quite adult 

 should not be forgotten, as age may produce some change in the 

 colour. In size it very nearly indeed equals the specimens of C. 

 milii of Paris. 



Thus it may be that the seven species which I before enumerated 

 (but which separate enumeration I stated to be only provisional, and 

 by no means intended to imply my conviction of their specific di- 

 stinctness |1) will have to be reduced in number if the approximations 

 above indicated turn out to be really necessary. Taking M. pusillus 

 as the type of Mici-ocebus, M. minor and M. myoxinus will be the 

 second and third species of that genus. 



C.furcifer, on the other hand, will range itself side by side with 

 C. milii in the genus Cheirogaleus, where it was placed by Isidore 

 Geoff. St.-Hilaire^ — an approximation evidently natural when the 

 two skins are viewed side by side, and not to be disputed by any one 

 unprepared to erect C. fureifer into a new and distinct genus, on the 

 ground of its very elongated first upper premolar and its before de- 

 scribed tarsal structure. But even M. pusillus and M. myoxinus 

 differ from each other as to these points (though in a less degree) ; 

 so that if the new species (M. coquereli of Pollen) presents another 



« See P. Z. S. 18GG, p. 154, note *. 



t The specimen came from the Museimi of the Zoological Society, and while 

 there was so labelled by Mr. Waterhouse (see Oat. of Mas. of Zool. Soc. 2nd edit, 

 p. 12. no. 89). 



X Loc. cit. p. 14:^. § L. c. p. 142. 



II P. Z. S. 18H4, p. C.-JT. t Cat. des Primates, p. 77. 



