60 



SIMIIDiE. 



tion of the caudal vertebrae of M. rhesus is greater than has been generally 

 supposed. 



The skulls of these two monkeys so resemble each other in age and general 

 dimensions that there can be no question as to their specific identity, and, moreover, 

 they do not present a single anatomical feature by which they can be separated from 

 M. rhesus, and in support of the latter statement I figure the skull of « (figs. 3 and 

 4) and append the measurements of both. It will also be observed that this skull 



Fig. 3. — Lateral aspect of the cranium of the variety of M. rhesus, Desm., found in Yunnan. | nat. size. 



rig. 4.— Upper aspect of the cranium of the variety of M. rhesus, Desm., found in Yunnan, f nat. size. 



is extremely closely allied to the female skull of M. tcheliensis (= M. lasiotis, Gray) 

 as figured by A. M.-Edwards in his able work on the Mammals of China and Tibet, 

 and from which it is chiefly distinguished by the depression of the frontal region and 

 its greater contraction in the temporal fossa and by the lesser rotundity of the 

 parietals. Moreover, although it appeals to be of the same age as M. tcheliensis, the 

 last tooth having not pierced the jaw in either, itis an appreciably smaller skull. 



