M. A. C. Hinton — A Monkey's Bone from the Forest-Bed. 443 



specimen. Lydekker,^ referring to this specimen, stated that it un- 

 doubtedly does belong to a monkey, but that the tooth is so worn that 

 it is not possible to determine the genus. However, in a later work 

 Lydekker^ refers to it as "a species of Macacus from the Pleistocene 

 brickearths of Essex," and in another place Flower & Lydekker' 

 allude to it as a species of Macacus, very interesting as showing the 

 existence of an ape at this late period in Western Europe. Beyrich * 

 thought the reference to Macacus arbitrary, but Forsyth Major * was 

 inclined to accept Owen's determination, saying : *' Cependant cette 

 dent possedant la forme generale et le mode d'usure qui caracterisent 

 le Macacus et le distinguent du Semnopithecus,^^ etc. 



Certain doubts have been expressed to me as to whether the 

 specimen in question, which is now in the British Museum, really 

 came from the Grays brickearth, and I notice that neither in the 

 Introduction to the Pleistocene Mammalia ® nor in the lists given 

 elsewhere' does Boyd Dawkins refer to the Grays monkey. 



The reasons for this scepticism appear to be twofold, and with 

 regard to each I should like to make a few remarks. The first and 

 most general ground of suspicion is that, although the deposit at Grays 

 was searched for fossil bones for many years, the fragment of jaw 

 found in 1845 remains the unique specimen from that locality 

 referable to an ape. But there are other animals known from the 

 Grays brickearth whose remains are almost as rare, viz. Felis catus, 

 the Hysena and the Pig, and with regard to the remains of many 

 small vertebrates which are now known to have occurred in extreme 

 abundance in this deposit, it was not until 1899 that their existence 

 in the Grays brickearth was suspected.^ And even were there no 

 likelihood of the remains of so small an animal as a monkey being 

 overlooked, there would still remain the fact that the habits of the 

 monkey are all against the chance of his remains being entombed in 

 an ordinary fluviatile deposit.^ It is a noteworthy fact that almost 

 without exception such fossil remains of monkeys as we do meet with 

 in fluviatile deposits are refei'able to Macacus, the least agile genus of 

 the whole order. 



The second reason appears to be that Macacus looks out of place m 

 occurring at Grays, the Grays brickearth belonging to the Middle 

 Terrace of the Thames Valley, and the deposits of this horizon 

 yielding remains of such animals as Ovilos and Dicrostonxjx. The 



' Lydekker : Cat. Foss. Mamm. Brit. Mus., 1885, pt. i, p. 4. 



"• Lydekker : " A Geographical History of Mammals," 1896, p. 180. 



2 Flower & Lydekker : " Mammals Living and Extinct," 1891, p. 723. 



* Beyrich: Abhand. d. Akad. d. Wiss. z. Berlin aus d. Jahre 1860, p. 23, 1861. 

 5 Forsyth Major: Atti del Soc. Ital., 1872, xv, p. 86. 



* Dawkins & Sanford: Monographs of the Palseontographical Society, 1872, 

 pp. xix and 1. 



' Dawkins: Quart. Journ. Geol. Soc, vol. xxiii, p. 101 ; ibid., vol. xxv, p. 199 ; 

 ibid., vol. xxxvi, p. 398. 



* Hinton & Kennard: Essex Naturalist, vol. xi, pp. 347-53. 



^ Falconer & Cautley: Trans. Geol. Soc. of London, 1837, vol. v, p. 499, and 

 reprinted in " Palneontological Memoirs," 1868, vol. i, p. 292. The opening 

 paragraph of this classical paper puts this view in the most striking manner 

 possible. 



