665 



THE SYNONYMIES, CHAEACTERS AND DISTRIBUTION OF 



THE MACAQUES INCLUDED UNDER THE ^AME^ RHESUS 



AND ASSAMENSIS IN BLANFORD'S MAMMALS. 



BY 

 M. A. C. HiNTON AND THE LATE R. C. WrOUGHTON. 

 In examining the synonymy, &c., of M. rhesus and 31. msamensis, as listed 

 in the Mammaha, we hav( found so much to upset all i^reconceived notions 

 that we are of opinion that the results are of sufficient interest and importance 

 to require a more detailed record than could be conceded to them in a " revision." 

 It Avill, we tliink, make an understanding of the mistakes and confusion 

 which have crept into the use of these two names more easy if, before recording 

 the results in detail of our enquiry, we give in outhne the conclusions to which we 

 have been led. A detailed summary of these results Avill be found at the end of 

 this paper. 



Firstly then, in 1771, Pennant described a monkey, seen by him in a menagerie 

 so well and adequately that there can be no doubt that the animal was the Rhesus.' 

 Owing to a strong personal prejudice against giving latin names to animals. 

 Pennant did not name it otherwise than as the " Tawny Monkey ". This omis- 

 sion was first rectified by Zimmermann in 1780, when he gave it the name of 

 nndatta, thus antedating the name rhesus given by Audebert in 1798, by nearly 

 20 j-ears. There is no burking this fact and in future 31. mulatta must replace 

 31. rhesus. 



Secondly the name rhesus remained in general and undivided use till 1839 

 when McClelland named a species, from Assam, which he called assamensis. 

 From this point confusion crept in, owing to some extent to the loss of McClel- 

 land's type specimen. The result of our enquiry shows that assamensis is a 

 totally different animal from mulatta ("rhesus"), with a comparatively restricted 

 range in the Himalayas and Assam. 



The following are the details of the synonymy which prove the antedating of 

 rhesus by mulatta. 



Pennant (Syn. Quadr. p. 120, No. 86), 1771, describes the " Ta%vny Monkey " 

 as follows :— " Monkey with a face a little produced ; that and the ears flesh- 

 coloured ; nose flattish : long canine teeth in the lower jaw : hair on the upper 

 side of the body pale tawny, cinereous at the roots : hind part of the back orange : 

 legs cinereous : belly white : size of a cat : tail shorter than the body. Inhabits 

 India. From one in Mr. Brook's exhibition, very ill-natured." Pennant gives 

 a plate wliich could not possibly be accepted as that of rhesus, but explains 

 elsewhere in the volume (xxiii A.) that this figure is not that of the " ta^vny 

 monkey " but of another specimen which he considered to be a variety of it. 

 With the figure thus removed outside the discussion, there can remain no doubt 

 that Pennant's description, is that of the animal we now know as the Rhesus. 



Six years later Erxleben (Mamm. p. 43), 1777, notices Pennant's description 

 and gives a translation into Latin, even to the concluding "malignus." Erxleben 

 however, never ha^^ng seen it, places it under a heading " Sjiecies obscure " 

 and gives it no name. 



Zimmermann (Geogr. Gesch. des Menschens, ii, p. 195)1780, under the heading 

 "der braimgelbe Aife," gives the following diagnosis " Cercopithecus (Mulatta) 

 fusco-luteus, caninis inferioribus magnis." The form of this diagnosis might 

 give room for a doubt whether the word mulatta is really used as a siJecific name. 

 But throughout the book Zimmermann almost universally encloses specific 

 names in brackets, and in an appendix (Zool. Weltcharte. p. 25) pubhshed in 

 1783 the name is clearly given " Sim. 35 = Cercop. mulatta, Zimm. Tawny 

 Monkey, Penn. Der braungelbe Aflfe." 



Kerr (Anim. Kingd., p. 73), 1792, basing, on Pennant's Tawny Monkey, gives 

 the name Simia (Cercopithecus) fulvus and paraphrases Pennant's description. 

 Thus further destrojing the seniority of the specific name rhesus. 



