494 Dr. Forsyth Major — Extinct Primates of Madagascar. 



The smaller of the two bones does not seem to me to be out of 

 proportion with the skull of Megaladapis madagascariensis : if 

 ■this supposition is right, the larger femur may prove to belong 

 to Peloriadapis, a new genus allied to Megaladapis, based by 

 <T. Grandidier on some teeth from the same locality.^ 



A decided approach towards the Nycticebinaa, especially the West 

 African Perodicticus and Arctocebiis, is the flattening of the shaft of 

 both these femora, and the slight curvature with the concavity 

 forwards, together with the large head and the very large plate-like 

 ' lesser ' trochanter of the smaller of the two, a specimen of 

 which, from the same locality, is in the British Museum. These 

 Tesemblances may or may not be an indication of closer relationship ; 

 on the other hand, the locomotion can scarcely have been the same 

 in the two groups. If the sluggish Nj'^cticebinse are to some extent 

 •comparable in their habits and locomotion with the Bradypodidee, the 

 ■clumsy Megaladapis can scarcely be supposed to have been climbers 

 at all. The remarkable shortness and flattening of the Megaladapis 

 femur calls to mind the same bone of aquatic Mammalia ; the 

 elevated position of its orbit would point in the same direction. 



As to the affinities of Megaladapis witli other Lemuroids, I now 

 bold that its specializations are not a sufficient reason for its being 

 removed into a separate family. There are in the first place 

 undoubted affinities in the pattern of the cheek-teeth with Lepido- 

 lemur and also with the Indrisinas. Relying chiefly on the 

 vertebral column, Mivart long ago submitted that Lepidolemur 

 " seems to be that genus of the Lemuriu£e which most approximates 

 to the Indrisinee." ^ In this I fully concur, as the characters of the 

 molars and the leg-bones point in the same direction. On the other 

 hand, Winge has insisted on the relationship of Ghiromys with the 

 Indrisinaj, and in my opinion he is, as usual, right here also. It 

 will thus be possible to show that these four groups, at first sight so 

 -very different from each other, because each of them is specialized 

 in a different direction, are closely related to each other, and pre- 

 sumably had a common origin. There are, besides, reasons for the 

 assumption — the molar pattern for one — that they were derived 

 from a common stem with the Cebid^. Whether this is the right 

 ■view, the future will show. 



II. PAL^OCHIROGALUS. 

 Another recent addition to our knowledge of extinct Malagasy 

 Lemurids is equally due to M. G. Grandidier. He describes and 

 figures two teeth, which " recall in their general form the two last 

 upper molars of Chirogahis," and accordingly calls them PalceocUro- 

 gains Jullyi (nov. gen. et nov. sp.).^ These "teeth, from the marshes 

 of Sirabe, belong, in my opinion, to an extinct form of the genus 

 Lemur, the figure to the right representing the first or second left 

 upper true molar, whilst the figure to the left appears to be the 



1 Bull. Mus. d'hist. nat. Paris, 1899, No. 6, p. 275 ; No. 7, p. 344 

 - Proc. Zool. Soc. London. 1873, p. 490. 



2 Bull. Mus. d'hist. uat. Puns, 1899, Xo. 7, p. 345. 



