Dr. ForsytJt Major — Extinct Primates of Madagascar. 493 



incisors. This is another agreement with the recent Malagasy 

 genus Lepidolemiir, attested also by the similarity in the pattern 

 of the molars. The strongly curved nasals of this Megaladapis 

 protrude forward more than in any other Lemuroid. 



Dr. V. Lorenz has of late^ published under the name of Megaladapis 

 brachycephalus, sp.n., the upper and the side view of the skull of a 

 Megaladapis taken from photographs which had been communicated 

 to various museums and zoologists by the collector, Sikora, who 

 had discovered the remains in a cave near Fort Dauphin on the 

 south-east coast. This skull is, in my opinion, of the same species 

 as the above-mentioned remains in the British Museum, which are 

 from the same locality. In the same paper- Dr. Lorenz publishes 

 another photograph, representing the side view of a Lemurine skull 

 from the same cave near Fort Dauphin ; the figure is briefly 

 described, and named " Mesoadapis destructus, gen, nov. spec, nov." 

 The original of the photograph had been previously acquired by the 

 British Museum,^ and will be described in detail shortly. It belongs 

 to a young individual of Megaladapis insignis : the three cheek-teeth 

 visible are the deciduous molars ; the caniniform tooth, exhibited 

 in profile in the photograph, is the anterior protruding portion of 

 the permanent canine. This skull confirms the opinion formerly 

 expressed by me, viz., that young specimens of Megaladapis would 

 show a much closer approach to the ordinary Lemurine type than 

 the adult in the conformation of the brain cavity and its walls.^ 

 From what has been stated above, the synonymy of the species is as 

 follows : — 



Megaladapis insignis, Maj.* 



Syn. Megaladapis brachycephalus, Lor.® 

 Paloeolemur destructus, Lor.' 

 Mesoadapis destructus, Lor.® 



From the well-known localit}'^ Ambolisatra, on the south-west 

 coast of Madagascar, G. Grandidier has described two femora, the 

 larger of which he considers as belonging to Megaladapis mada- 

 gascariensis, whilst the smaller is provisionally called Megaladapis (?) 

 Filholi.^ Both the bones share the same general characters, 

 viz., shortness and extreme antero-posterior flattening ; but the 

 differences, as has been pointed out by Mr. Grandidier, are suflRcient 

 to warrant their being referable to two diff'erent although closely 

 allied genera. 



' Ludwig Ritt. Lorenz v. Liburnau, " Uber einige Reste ausgestorbener Primateu 

 von Madagaskar " : Denkschr. Akad. Wiss. "Wien., Ixx (1900), p. 8, pi. ii. 



- Op. cit., p. 10, pi. iii, fig. 3. 



' Dr. V. Lorenz, when writing his paper, was not aware of this circumstance. 



* Phil. Trans. Roy. Soc. London, B, vol. clxxxv (1894), p. 27 ; Proc. Roy. Soc. 

 London, vol. Ixii (1897), p. 49. 



^ Proc. Zool. Soc. London, December 19, 1899, p. 989. 



« Op. cit., 1900, p. 8, pi. ii. 



' Auzeiger Akad. Wiss. Wien., 1900, No. 1, p. 8 {teste Lorenz). 



« Denkschr. Akad. Wiss. Wien., Ixx (1900), p. 10, pi. iii, fig. 1. 



" Bull. Mils, d'hist. nat. Paris, 1899, No. 6, pp. 272-275. 



