100 MICROCEBUS 



species," and that he does not intend to imply that all those 

 given are distinct, some only having been adopted provisionally 

 on the authority of others. 



1867. Grandidier, in Revue et Magasin de Zoologie. 

 Microcebus coquereli first described as Cheirogaleus ( !) 

 coquereli. 



1868. Grandidier, in Annates du Museum d'Histoire Naturelle de 

 Paris. 



Microcebus murinus redescribed as Cheirogaleus ( !) gli- 

 roides. 

 1870. /. E. Gray, Catalogue of Monkeys, Lemurs and Fruit-eating 

 Bats, in the Collection of the British Museum. 

 In this list, Microcebus murinus is given as Cheirogaleus ( !) 

 smithi Gray, and placed in the genus Lepilemur (!), and 

 comments are made on Microcebus myoxinus Peters, the 

 Author, however, never having seen a specimen. In the Appen- 

 dix several genera are proposed for the species of Microce- 

 bus as follows : Murilemur for Microcebus murinus ; Phaner 

 for M. furcifer ; and Mirza for M. coquereli. All these are 

 quite unnecessary. 



1872. /. E. Gray, in Proceedings of the Zoological Society of London. 

 This paper is practically a repetition of a review of the 

 Lemurid^e given in the Catalogue above mentioned, except 

 that whereas the species of Microcebus were in the pre- 

 vious publication placed in various genera, here they are in- 

 cluded in one Lepilemur ( !) with the addition of L. mus- 

 telinus Geoff., (which is generically distinct from the species 

 of Microcebus), and with the omission of M. myoxinus 

 Peters. The genera Phaner and Mirza are suppressed. 



1873. Mivart, in Proceedings of the Zoological Society of London. 

 This is another of the Author's elaborate papers on the 

 Lemurid^e, in which he raises the entire group to a suborder of 

 the Primates, as Lemuroidea, and gives very cogent and per- 

 tinent reasons why they should not be considered as an order. 

 He also considers that Microcebus and Chirogale are gen- 

 erically the same, to be known by the latter name, the one first 

 designated. He cites A. Milne-Edwards' opinion regarding the 

 species of the genus Chirogale with which he apparently con- 

 curs; viz., that smithi, minor, myoxinus, gliroides, rufus, and 

 pusillus are all one ; that milii, typicus, and adipicaudatus are 

 the same as major Geoffroy; that samati is medius Geoff., and 



