752 DR. C. F. SONNTAG OX THE COMPARATIVE AlfATOMY 



Koiie are present on the inferior surface of the tongue. They 

 are smooth or granular, and ai'e hemisphei-ical or pedunculated. 



The conical papillpe have the usual arrangement. They are 

 closely packed and exhibit considerable mutual compression. 

 Some are low and cylindrical, but othei's stand up prominently. 



The papillfe on the oral pax't of the tongue are smaller than 

 those on the base, and a line of demarcation, concave forwards, 

 separates the two groups. The tongue resembles those of Lemar 

 and HapalemuT in this respect, and difiers from those of the 

 Lorises, Pottos, and Galagos. There is also an area devoid of 

 papilla? in front of the epiglottis ; this is bisected by the median 

 glosso-epiglottic fold. 



The sublingua has been described by Owen (13), Gegenbaur (5), 

 and Pocock (15), but several details are omitted, or not sufficiently 

 emphasised, in their accounts. 



It is a tia,t horny plate with entire lateral margins iuid a 

 rounded anterior border with a central projection, whose point 

 marks the place where the strong, denticulated median ventral 

 ridge bends downwards in a hook. This crest increases in depth 

 from behind-forwards, and its hook lies 9 mm. posterior to the 

 apex of the tongue. 



It was shown in the descriptions of the sublingufe of the 

 Lorises that there is a thick central strip and two thin lateral 

 parts. The same parts are present in CMroinys, but differ from 

 those of the Lorises in that the central part is adherent to the 

 under surface of the tongue, but the lateral parts are free ; in 

 the Lorises, on the other hand, both parts are fi'ee. Gegenbaur 

 and Pocock both describe a free lateral margin, but do not give 

 any idea of the extent of the free part. In mv specimen the 

 total width of the sublingua is 1-2 cm.; the central firm a.dlierent 

 part is -6 cm. wide, and each free lateral part is 'S cm, wide. A 

 probe can be passed for a considerable distance between the 

 under surface of the tongue and the sublingua. No denticles 

 project from the anterior border. 



Pocock (15) described the two small glandular (?) pockets on 

 each side of the frenum, and pointed out that the frenal lamellge 

 are narrow. 



Gegenbaur (5) described the horny natui^e of the sublingua, 

 but did not show how the thickness vai^ies in different parts. 

 Although one thinks that the central parts are thicker than the 

 lateral parts, when the tongue is entire, one sees that the reverse 

 is the case when sections are made. The apparent thickness of 

 the central part is due to a downward projection of the lingual 

 muscles to which the central part of the sublingua is closely 

 applied (text-fig. 68 F). 



The Lytta — The tongue possesses a sti-ong median ridge on 

 the vmder surface of the sublingua, which Owen termed the 

 " lytta." He did not describe sections of the tongue, for a well- 

 developed lytta is pi-esent close to the sublingua. Gegenbaur 

 made the same omission, but Nussbamn (11) recorded its 



