444 M. A. C. Hill f on — A Monkey's Bone from the Forest-Bed. 



Middle Terrace stage in the Thames Valley doubtless represents 

 a very long period of time, and although stratigraphically the brick- 

 earths of Grays, Ilford, and Crayford and Erith are inseparable, the 

 palseontological evidence is strong to the effect that they Tvere not 

 deposited at one time. I regard the Grays deposit as intermediate in 

 actual age between the High Terrace drift of Greenhithe and the 

 brickearth of Ilford, and I further regard the Crayford and Erith 

 deposits as later than those of either Essex locality. This is not the 

 place to discuss this question at any length, but, briefly, my reason 

 for such views is that the Grays deposit yields only the older southern 

 fauna, and it has consequently more palteontological affinity with the 

 High Terrace ' than it has with its strati graphical equivalent at 

 Craj'ford and Erith. On these grounds, and on the fact that the 

 actual mineral condition of the fragmentary jaw agrees with the other 

 fossil bones from Grays, I am disposed to regard the only known 

 specimen of Macacus pUoccenus as a genuine Grays fossil. 



As Lartet- has stated, monkeys are intolerant of cold, and the 

 occurrence of their remains in a deposit is a proof that at the time of 

 their existence the climate of the region in which they lived must have 

 been a genial one. liemains of Maeacus are known from the Pliocene beds 

 of the Val d'Arno^ (two species), Montpellier,* and the Sewalik Hills,^ 

 and from the Pleistocene of Algeria,® from the Cave of Montsaumes 

 (Haute-Garonne) ' and the Heppenloch Cave in "Wurtemberg.^ The 

 latter cave deposit was regarded by Hedinger and Nehring as of 

 Pliocene age. Although at the present time M. niuus inhabits 

 Gibraltar, it is a curious fact that no trace of its former existence there 

 was found among the numerous fossil mammalian remains obtained 

 from the Pleistocene cave deposits of the rock.^ 



In conclusion, I have to express my best thanks to Mr. G. "White 

 for the loan of the specimen ; to Mr. E. T. Newton, F.R.S., Dr. C. W. 

 Andrews, F.R.S., Dr. C. I. Forsyth Major, F.R.S., Mr. Oldfield 

 Thomas, F.R.S., and Professor Keith for much kind help. 



^ Hinton: I'roc. Geol. Assoc, vol. xx, p. 52. This question is more fully 

 discussed in my account of the High Terrace Mammalia, which I hope will shortly 

 appear, and in an account of the British Fossil Voles and Lemmings which I am 

 preparing. 



2 Lartet : Ann. d. Sci. Nat., serie v, tome viii. 



' Cocchi, " Su di due scimie fossili italiane," 1872 ; and Forsyth Major, Atti del 

 See. Ital., XV, p. 89; Ristori, Boll. Comit. Geol., 1890. 



* Gervais : Zool. et Pal. Fran^ais, 1859, p. 11, figs. 4, 5, M. priscns. 



5 Lydekker : Rec. Geol. Surv. India, xi, p. 66, and xii, p. 41, pi. i, M. sivalensis. 



^ Pomel : Comptes Rendus, vol. cxv, p. 157, and Carte Geol. Algerie, Men. Pal., 

 1897, pi. iii. 



' Harle: Mem. Soc. d'histoire nat. de Toulouse, 1892, p. 2, and Cat. Palaeon. 

 Quatern., 1899, p. 27. I have not seen the latter work. 



8 Hedinger: Neues Jahrbuch f. Min., 1891, Bd. i, p. 169, Taf. 10. 



' Busk:"Trans. Zool. Soc, vol. x, p. 129. Trouessart (Cat. Mamm., vol. i, 

 p. 26) mentions Macacus fossil is, Gibraltar, a record based on the following reference 

 by Calderon (Q.J.G.S., vol. xxxiii, p. 128): "Quadrumana: Pefion of Gibraltar? 

 Imrie," but I believe Busk's statement to be accurate. 



