MACACUS. 69 



But before considering M. pelops and its relationship to M. assammisis, I 

 have to remark that the former has long been a puzzle to zoologists owing to a 

 variety of circumstances, among which may be mentioned the following : first, 

 that the characters which distinguish it were not clearly defined by its describer ; 

 second, that the distribution which he assigned it was drawn with an unnatural pre- 

 cision, inapplicable moreover to species with the roving habits which more or less 

 characterise monkeys ; ^ and third, the difficulty of procuring ferine examples of 

 monkeys, more particularly of animals inhabiting the Himalayan region. 



Hodgson, writing in 1832, observed that there were no monkeys in the northern 

 and central regions of Nepal, and that those of the southern region Avere identical, 

 so far as he knew, with the ordinary species of the plains, or the langiir and the 

 bandar. In a foot-note, however, he stated that religion had introduced the latter 

 {M. rhesus) into the central regions, where it seemed to flourish half domesticated 

 in the neighbourhood of temples in the populous valley of Nepal Proper. It is 

 important to observe that he divided Nepal into three climatic provinces, each of 

 which he considered to be distinguished by certain well-marked physical and 

 geological features. The first of these was the lower region, which he held had 

 the climate of the plains of Nepal with some increase of heat and a great excess 

 of moisture. This tract included the Tarai or marshes, the Bhawar or forest, and 

 the lower hills. The second region he termed the central, and defined as a cluster- 

 ous succession of mountains varying in elevation from 3,000 to 10,000 feet, and 

 having a temperature of from 10 to 20 degrees lower than that of the plains. 

 The third tract he denominated the juxta-Himalayan or Kachar, consisting of high 

 mountains, the summits of which were covered for half the year in snow, and the 

 climate of the region he described as having nothing tropical about it but the 

 successions of the seasons. 



Nine years afterwards his opinion regarding the non-existence of wild 

 monkeys in the central and northern regions of Nepal was abandoned, as in 1841 

 he described Semnopithecus schistaceiis and 31. oinops from the southern or Tarai 

 region, and M. jielops from the northern region of hills exclusively. But he held 

 that the first of these occasionally ranged through the central to the northern 

 region. This latter observation has been fully verified by other naturalists having 

 observed P. schistaceiis at 12,000 feet, and the late Captain Hutton records that he 

 had seen the same species at an elevation of 11,000 feet, while the fir trees among 

 which they sported were laden with snow. But there is no evidence that any 

 species of monkey in the Himalaya is naturally resident at those heights at which 

 snow annually lies, as was supposed by Hodgson, and it is the rarity of their occur- 

 rence at these high elevations and during winter that has directed so much attention 

 to their hibernal wanderings. In the summer they are much more widely distri- 

 buted than in the winter, when, as a rule, they are driven to lower heights and 

 into the warmer valleys. I have said naturally resident because it is a well-known 



1 la the neighbourhood of Calcutta (Botanical Gardens) large troops of 8. entellus make their appearance for a 

 few days in spring and are not to be seen there at other seasons of the year. 



