60 



SIMIIDiE. 



tion of the caudal vertebrEe of M. rhesus is greater thaa 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 3L rhesus, Desm., found in Yunnan, f nat. size. 



Fig. 4. — Upper aspect of the cranium of the variety of 3f. rhesus, Desm., found in Yunnan. | 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 appears to be of the same age as 31. tcheliensis, the 

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



