PRIMATES 195 



jaws and teeth described by Leidy, Cope, Marsh and others, had become 

 the basis of a confused and extensive synonymy. In a revision of this 

 group by Osborn'*** in 1902, many of the more important types were fig- 

 ured, the species were arranged according to geological level, and the 

 SA^nonymy and literature were made accessible for future research. This 

 was followed in 1903 by the contributions of Dr. Wortman''^ on the 

 Eocene Primates of the Marsh Collection of the Peabody Museum. Here 

 we find many carefully executed figures of the skull and dentition of 

 recent and fossil Primates, and, especially, original and stimulating views 

 regarding the relationships of all the families of Primates, the origin of 

 the order and the origin of mankind. But until the rich undescribed 

 material of Eocene Primates in the American Museum has been thor- 

 oughly studied, the writer is not in a position to offer any effective criti- 

 cism of Dr. Wortman's conclusions. These have been reviewed by Dr. 

 Schlosser,* who has given a brief reclassification of the group and has 

 shown that NecroJemur resembles AnaptomorpJius in the skeleton. 



In this connection it may not be inappropriate to note that Dr. D. G. 

 Elliot has now in press a monograph on the Primates which will contain 

 an extensive series of photographs of the skull and dentition of the recent 

 forms. 



The researches of Forsyth Major, Grandidier,*- Standing,*^ and others 

 on the extinct lemurs of Madagascar show that some of the short-faced 

 genera closely approach the Anthropoidea in skull characters. Stand- 

 ing concludes that the Lemuroidea and Anthropoidea are closely related 

 and that the modern Lemuroids have been derived by retrogressive 

 changes from a more pithecoid type. Chiromys and Megaladupis are 

 said to be closely related with the modern Indrisinae. These conclusions 

 are also supported by Elliot Smith*^ from his studies on the brain and 

 brain casts. 



In the field of the Anthropoidea the most notable event is the descrip- 

 tion by Schlosser t of two new genera, Parapithecus and PropUopithecns, 

 founded on lower jaws from the Oligocene of the Fayum. In dental 

 formula, characters of the teeth, and shape of the jaw, these two genera, 

 according to Schlosser, represent successive stages leading from the 

 Anaptomorphidae and Tarsiidae to PUopithecus and the Simiidae. 

 Schlosser even regards PropUopithecus as certainl}' the ancestor of Plio- 



"Bull. Amer. Mus. Nat. Hist., vol. xvl, pp. 169-214. 



*iAmer. Jour. Sci., vol. 1.5. 1903. 



• Neues Jahrb. f. Mln., Geol. u. Pal., Festband, 1908, p. 201, 



" Recherches sur les Lemurien.s disparus. Nouv. Arch, du Miis.. 4e ser., tome vii, 1905. 



«* Trans. Zool. Soc, vol. xviii. pt. 11. 1008. pp. .19-1(52. pll. x-xvli. 



<* Trans. Zool. Soc, vol. xviii. pt. ii. 1008. pp. 10.'i-177. 



t Beltr. z. PalHont, u. Geol, Osterreach-XTng. u, d. Orients, Bd. xxlv, pp. 62-64. 



