1^2 MB. F. E. BEDDAED OK THE [Feb. 19, 



but the rest of the skeleton and the principal viscera of Hapalemur 

 simus. This volume, however, consists merely of the " Atlas " ; 

 the corresponding letterpress has not yet, so far as I am aware, 

 been published. I believe that the above list exhausts the memoirs 

 which deal anatomically with Hapalemur simus at first hand. I 

 judge that the late Dr. Mivart in writing of " Hapalemur simus " 

 should have written " Hapalemur griseus" since the structural 

 facts which he uses in the definition of the genus Hapalemur ^ 

 are those of H. griseus and not those of H. simus. The pecu- 

 liarities of the teeth of the latter, which are plainly enough 

 shown in the bulk of the figures of the skull to which I have 

 already referred, are not included by Dr. Mivart in his generic 

 definitions. As these teeth pecaliarities have not yet been 

 emphasized in words, I shall perhaps not be performing an 

 unnecessary task in calling attention to them. 



In Hapalemur simus, which has a much more truncated as well 

 as a much broader snout than has H. griseus, both the incisors are 

 sheltered by the canine so as to be invisible on a lateral view. 

 This state of affairs is correctly figured by Gray '. In H. griseus, 

 on the other hand, as figured by Mivarb in his early paper on the 

 structure of Lemurs^, only the posterior of the two incisors is thus 

 sheltered, the anterior incisor being decidedly in front, though 

 also to the side, of the canine. In a young skull in my possession 

 both incisors are in front of the canine, and in this particular the 

 young Hapalemur griseus resembles the adult Lemur. At least 

 most species of that genus, for in Lemur hrunneus (a note by my 

 predecessor Mr. Forbes informs me) the condition is like that of 

 Hapalemur. The line of the molars is straighter in H. sitniis than 

 in H. griseus, where it is slightly concave inwards — the line of the 

 teeth following that of the palate, which is in that species a little 

 narrowed posteriorly ; it is not so in H. simus. The molars of 

 the upper jaw in H. simus have an additional cusp not found in 

 H. griseus ; it is the inner posterior cusp, and the molars are thus 

 quadricLispid instead of tricuspid. This seems to me to be a rather 

 important distinctior.. It is, as I have remarked, correctly figured 

 by previous authors but has not been described. The molars of 

 H. simus are larger than the premolars ; this is not the case with 

 H. griseus, in which species the third premolar is the largest tooth 

 of the cheek-teeth series. In H. simus pm. 2 and pm. 3 are 

 subequal in size. 



The first point to which I directed my attention was the 

 condition of the forearm. It will be recollected that I was able 

 to show in the case of its congener H. griseus that the male was 

 distinguished by the existence close to the hand of a patch of 

 spine-like structures associated with a large gland lying beneath 



^ " On Lepidolemur and Cheirogcdeus and on the Zoological Eank of the 

 Lemuridffi," P. Z. S. 1873, p. .500. 



2 P. Z. S. 1870, p. 830, fig. 3. 



^ " Notes on the Crania and Dentition of the Lemuridse," P. Z. S. 1864, 

 p. 613. See also P. Z. S. 1867, p. 960. 



