﻿Ixxviii PROCEEDINGS OF THE GEOLOGICAL SOCIETY. [MayifJIO, 



advanced by Cope. Yet the arguments on which it is based are 

 of the slenderest character : so far as I can make out, they are two 

 in number : first, that the Anthropomorpha are distinguished by the 

 absence of anapophyses to the vertebrae, although these processes 

 are well developed in monkeys ; but, as Cope mentions in the same 

 breath, they are also well developed in lemurs, and thus, apart 

 from the fact that they occasionally make their appearance as 

 vestigial traces among the Anthropomorpha, this argument loses all 

 its force. 



The second argument is to the effect that large-brained Lemu- 

 roids existed in North America during the Lower Eocene period and 

 that they were provided with an Anthropomorph dentition, the 

 Anaptomorphidae being especially cited in this connexion. But 

 the same statement is true of the Cercopithecidae, which possess an 

 equally Anthropomorph dentition, and thus this argument affords 

 as little reason as the first for excluding the Catarrhini from the 

 ancestral series. 



Max Schlosser, 1 one of our first authorities on the palaeontology 

 of the Primates, has adopted to some extent Cope's position." His 

 latest classification of this order is as follows : — 



PRIMATES. 



I. Suborder Mesodonta (Cope): Primitive i, c, andm. i3-2,ci,pm4,m3 j 

 Section 1. Pseudolemuroidini (Schlosser) : pm *. 

 Family 1. Hypsodontidae : i jj, claws. 



2. Notharctidae : i \ 



3. Adapidae : i |. 



Section 2. Palaeopithecini : pm reduced in number. 

 Family 1. Anaptomorphidae : i g — x . 

 2. Tarsiidae : i \ 



Section 3. Mixodectini : i originally normal, 3, sometimes 

 specialized, and J. 

 Family 1. Oldobatidae : i | i enlarged. 



2. Microsyopidae : i ~ > i enlarged. 



1 ' Beitrag zur Osteologie & Systematische Stellung der Grattung Nccrolemur 

 sowie zur Stammgeschichte der Primaten iiberhaupt ' Neues Jahrb. Festbancl 

 1907) pp. 197-226, 



