356 



Discovert/ of three new species 



[Ma?, 



Dimensions of the lower Jaw. 



1. Extreme length from the anterior margin 

 of the ramus to the middle incisors, 



2. Extreme length of jaw ; (calculated in 

 the fossil,) 



3. Height of jaw, under the 2nd molar mea- 

 sured to the margin of the alveoli, 



4. Ditto at the rear molars, 



5. Depth of symphisis, 



6. Space occupied by the molars 



7. Interval between the 1st molars, 



8. Antero posterior diameter of the canine,. . 



9. Width of jaw behind the chin under the 

 2nd molar, 



1 3 





0) 



3 



s 



J3 



s . 



u 



(& 



u >, 



Z, W 







"5 a 



Cfl 



a 



-- <u 







_. c 





u . 



o 



n 



<U 



ft 



QQ 



Pi 



inches. 



inches. 



inches- 



3.6 



2.85 



2-5 



5.3 



4. 



3.6 



1.35 



1.05 



.85 



1.2 



1.1 



.95 



1.9 



1.4 



1.1 



2.3 



1.9 



1.5 



.9 



.75 



.65 



.5 



.4 



.3 



1.15 



1.05 



.95 



S3 



4 3.2 



4 3.02 



3.1 



3.6 



3. 



3.3 



3.2 



3.2 



4 3.7 



As in all other tribes of animals in which the species are very nu- 

 merous, and closely allied in organization, it is next to impossible to 

 distinguish an individual species in the Quadrumana from a solitary 

 bone. In the fossil, too, the effects of age have worn off those marks 

 in the teeth, by which an approximation to the subgenus might be 

 made. It very closely resembles the Semnopithecus Entellus in form, 

 and comparative dimensions generally. The differences observable 

 are slight. The symphisis is proportionally a little deeper than in 

 Entellus, and the height of the body of the jaw somewhat greater. 

 The chin, however, is considerably more compressed laterally under 

 the second molar than in the Entellus, and the first molar more elong- 

 ated and salient. So much of the canine as remains, has exactly the 

 same form as in the Entellus, and its proportional size is fully as great. 

 As shown by the dimensions, the jaw is much larger than in the full 

 grown Entellus : in the former the length would have been about 5.3 

 inches, while in the latter it is exactly 4 inches. The fossil was a 

 species of smaller size than the animal to which the specimen described 

 by Messrs. Baker and Durand belonged, but less so than it exceeds 

 the Entellus. 



Our limited means for comparison, restricted to two living species, 

 besides the imperfection of the fossil, and the few characters which it 

 supplies, do not admit of affirming whether it belongs to an existing or 

 extinct species ; but the analogy of the ascertained number of extinct 

 species among the Seivdlik fossil mammalia, makes it more probable 

 that this monkev is an extinct one than otherwise. There is no doubt 



