AND AFFINITIES OF TARSIUS. 473 



Hubrecbt, and Max Weber, in his attempt to remove tlie Lemurs 

 into an. Order apart from the other Primates : but the fallacy of 

 the arguments brought forward in support of such views has 

 been repeatedly exposed *. In view of the much more extensive 

 and precise knowledge of comparative anatomy, embryology, and 

 palaeontology that is now available, these claims to exclude the 

 Lemiu'oidea from the Pi'imates have even less justification than 

 in the past, and can only be given a plausible appearance by 

 special jDleading of a, desperately biassed kind. 



The zoological rank and affinities of no mammal are more 

 precisely determined than are those of Tarsius. The evidence 

 presented in Filhol's memoir f, published forty- five years ago, 

 clearly demonstrated that the Eocene ancestors of the Lemurs 

 were closely akin to the contemporary forerunners of the 

 Tarsioids, and mention has already been made of Cope's recog- 

 nition (in 1885), not only of the derivation of the Apes from 

 the Anaptomorphidpe, but also of the human likenesses which 

 he expressed by giving the specific name homunculus to a 

 Tetonius. But any lingering doubts on this subject have been 

 dispelled by the recent papers published by members of the staff 

 of the American Museum of Natural History J. 



The evidence of anatomy and palfeontology is thus unanimous 

 in support of the right of the Lemuroidea to be included in the 

 Primates. Nevertheless, tlie cleavage between Tarsms and the 

 Lemuroidea is so great as to establish the right to a separate 

 Subordinal rank for the former. The fact that its ancestors parted 

 compan}^ with those of the Lemuroidea so early as Paleocene or 

 even perhaps Cretaceous times affords strong corroboration of 

 the claim to put it into a distinct Suborder Tarsioidea. I have 

 already referred to the unjustifiable claim that the Tarsioids are 

 already monkeys and ought to be put into the Suborder Anthro- 

 poidea. Those who ai^gue in this illogical waj^ might perhaps 

 appreciate the fallacy underlying their claims by studying an 

 analogous case. The C3aiodonts are a group of very primitive 



* As, foi- example, Lj- 



Sir William Turner, "On the Placentation of the LeniTU's," Philosophical 

 Transactions of the Royal Society, vol. 166, pt. 2, 1876, p. 569 (who gives 

 the earlier bibliography), 

 and 

 Charles Earle, "The Lemurs as Ancestors of the Apes," Natural Science, vol. x.. 

 May 1897, p. 309: 

 also "On the Affinities of Tarsins: a Contribution to the Ph.ylogeny of the 

 Primates," American Naturalist, vol. xxxi., July 1897, p. 569, and August 

 1897, p. 680. 

 f H. Filhol, " Nouvelles observations sur les Mammiferes des Gisements de 

 Phosphates de Chaux," Annales des Sciences Geologiques, T. v. PI. 7 (1874). 



X W. D. Matthew and Walter Granger, "A Revision of the Lower Eocene 

 Wasatch and Wind River Faunas," Bull. American Museum of Natural History, 

 vol. xxxiv. (1915). William K. Gregory, " On the Relationship of the Eocene Lemiu- 

 JVo^/iarciftts to the Adapidse and the other Primates" and "On the Classification 

 and Phylogeny of the Lemuroidea," Bulletin of the Geological Society of America, 

 vol. xxvi., Nov. 1915, p. 419 ; and " Studies on the Evolution of the Primates," 

 Bulletin of the Aiuerican Museum of Natural History, vol, xxxv., June 1916, p. 239. 



