DISTRIBUTION OF THE MACAQUES. 667 



and on the chin is longer than in animals from the plains. This general colour 

 of this old specimen may be described as brown, washed on the outer side of the 

 fore-limbs, and more especially between the shoulders, and on the back of tha 

 nock with yellowish, which appears in certain lights as pale golden, passing oa 

 the upper surface of the head into a pale yellowish browa. The general brown 

 ish tint is darkest on the flanks, where it has a fuliginous tinge, and down 

 the front margin of the fore-limbs, over the outer surface of the thighs the dorsi 

 of the feet and on the tail. The inside of limbs and under surface generally are 

 much paler than the upper parts, and have a yellowish tint, inclining to grey. 

 Behind the angle of the mouth, and below and behind the ears and on the chin, 

 tlie hair is rather longer and nearly of the same colour as the under surface, but 

 slightly tipped with blackish. There is a moderately dense line of rather long 

 supraoi'bital hairs, with a pencil of similar hairs extending backwards from the 

 external orbital angle of the frontals. The hair generally is wavy, and on the 

 shoulders and between them above, and on the sides of tlae chest it is much 

 longer than on the hind part of the body, with the exception of the dark hairs 

 on the lower part of the flanks, which are also rather long. The hair on the vertex 

 radiates from a point of about one inch above the level of the supra-orbital ridge, 

 and a few of the front hairs are directed forwards, but the mass outwards and 

 slightly backwards, which is also the direction of the hairs to the radiating point. 

 There are a few black superciliary hairs, also others on the upper lip and cliin. 

 The callosities ai'e closely surrounded by the fur. Length along curve of head 

 and back 26 "75 inches, tail 9j". Blyth also examined this type, and whilst ha 

 was disposed to regard it as merely an individual variety of the common animal 

 of Bengal he noted that " the hind part of the body is not as usual strongly 

 tinged bright ferruginous or tawny, being uniformly coloured with the rest." 

 These full descriptions enable us to accept, with confidence, the specimens 

 collected by Mr. J. P. Mills, in the Garo Hills, as being practically topotypes of 

 assamensis, with which those collected by Mr. Crump in Sikkim are undoubtedly 

 conspecific. 



Hodgson (J. A. S. B., ix, p. 121,3), 1840, described M. jyelops. Tiie description 

 given is as follows : — " Structure and aspect similar to the last (i.e., oinops). 

 Colours more sordid and purpurescent, slaty partially merged in ru3ty ; buttock? 

 posteriorly (except the callosities) clad ; face nude and dusky, flatter than in tha 

 last. From the northern range of hills exclusively. Fur fuller and more wavy 

 than in oinops.'" The Hodgson material in the British Museum includes the 

 type of pelops. An examination of this and comparison with the description? 

 of the two species given above make it ci[uite certain that pelops is conspecilio 

 with assamensis and therefore a synonym of it. 



Other names given to assamensis are as follows : — - 



1870. Macacus problemalims, Gray, Cat. Monk. &c., B. M., p. 128 ; describe I 



from Dhalimkot, Bhutan. 

 1872, Macacus rheso-similis, Sclater, P. Z. S. p, 495 ; described from a living 

 specimen in the Zoo. 



The types of both these nominal spesies arc in the British Museum and 

 after careful examination, we have no hesitation in relegiting both to 

 the synonymy of assamensis. 

 1879. Macacus oinops, Anderson, nee Hodgson, West. Yunn., p. 62, in legend 

 below figures ,5 and 6 ; Anderson's figure represents a fine mile skull 

 of " pdops,'''' i.e., of assamensis, collected by Hodgson in Ne,-)il, 

 now in the British Museum Collection (No. 4.5, 1 .8.4) and th3 

 legend " type of oinops " is erroneous. This error has had far-reach- 

 ine consequences. 

 1881. Macacus rhesus, AndevHon (in part), nee Audebevt, C;it. Ind. Mus. 



p. 68 (No. 41e). 

 The most serious eifect of Anderson's erroneous legend has now to be noticed. 

 In 1872 (P. Z. S. p. 529) he published an excellent account of two remarkable 

 sjiecimens, collected in the Sunderbuns ' about 50 miles east of Calcutta.' These 

 3 



