﻿154 
  PAPIO 
  

  

  hairs 
  on 
  chin 
  hardly 
  of 
  a 
  length 
  to 
  be 
  termed 
  a 
  beard, 
  as 
  my 
  description 
  

   from 
  the 
  type, 
  and 
  Cuvier's 
  plate 
  testify, 
  and 
  Cuvier 
  in 
  his 
  description 
  

   in 
  Hist. 
  Mamm., 
  says 
  of 
  the 
  chin 
  hairs, 
  "forment 
  une 
  sorte 
  de 
  barbe," 
  

   which 
  is 
  more 
  beard 
  like 
  than 
  an 
  actual 
  beard. 
  Specimens 
  in 
  the 
  Berlin 
  

   Museum 
  from 
  Victoria, 
  near 
  Mundame 
  and 
  also 
  from 
  Boscho, 
  are 
  not 
  

   separable 
  from 
  the 
  true 
  leucoph^eus. 
  Herr 
  Hilzheimer's 
  example 
  

   may 
  not 
  have 
  been 
  fully 
  adult, 
  the 
  chin 
  hairs 
  not 
  appearing 
  long 
  

   enough 
  to 
  be 
  even 
  beard 
  like, 
  and 
  as 
  he 
  had 
  no 
  skull 
  of 
  leucoph^eus 
  

   to 
  compare 
  his 
  specimen 
  with, 
  he 
  could 
  not 
  show 
  that 
  it 
  was 
  different 
  

   in 
  any 
  way 
  from 
  that 
  of 
  Cuvier's 
  species, 
  and 
  the 
  Berlin 
  specimen 
  

   exhibits 
  no 
  distinctive 
  characters. 
  The 
  hair 
  on 
  the 
  chin 
  and 
  throat 
  of 
  

   P. 
  leucophjeus, 
  while 
  not 
  particularly 
  short, 
  can 
  hardly 
  be 
  considered 
  

   as 
  forming 
  a 
  beard. 
  

  

  Dr. 
  J. 
  A. 
  Allen, 
  (1. 
  c.) 
  has 
  determined 
  that 
  Kerr's 
  Simia 
  (Papio) 
  

   cinerea 
  is 
  this 
  species. 
  Kerr 
  gave 
  the 
  name 
  to 
  an 
  animal 
  described 
  by 
  

   Pennant 
  in 
  his 
  History 
  of 
  Quadrupeds, 
  vol. 
  I, 
  p. 
  176, 
  as 
  follows 
  : 
  

   "Cinereous 
  B. 
  with 
  a 
  dusky 
  face; 
  pale 
  brown 
  beard; 
  body 
  and 
  limbs 
  

   of 
  a 
  cinereous 
  brown 
  ; 
  crown 
  mottled 
  with 
  yellow." 
  

  

  Parts 
  of 
  this 
  brief 
  and 
  unsatisfactory 
  description 
  may 
  be 
  applicable 
  

   to 
  the 
  Drill, 
  and 
  we 
  cannot 
  prove 
  that 
  Dr. 
  Allen 
  was 
  in 
  error 
  in 
  his 
  

   conclusion, 
  neither 
  can 
  it 
  be 
  proved 
  that 
  he 
  was 
  undoubtedly 
  correct, 
  

   and 
  therefore 
  in 
  view 
  of 
  the 
  fact 
  that 
  it 
  must 
  ever 
  remain 
  questionable 
  

   as 
  to 
  what 
  species 
  Kerr's 
  description, 
  (which 
  is 
  mainly 
  a 
  repetition 
  of 
  

   Pennant's), 
  refers, 
  it 
  seems 
  unwise 
  to 
  displace 
  Cuvier's 
  name, 
  which 
  

   has 
  been 
  universally 
  employed 
  for 
  over 
  a 
  century, 
  and 
  was 
  bestowed 
  

   upon 
  a 
  species 
  known 
  and 
  accepted 
  by 
  all 
  Mammalogists, 
  in 
  favor 
  of 
  

   one 
  whose 
  type 
  is 
  exceedingly 
  doubtful, 
  and 
  which 
  can 
  never 
  be 
  proved 
  

   to 
  be 
  entitled 
  to 
  a 
  specific 
  recognition. 
  The 
  name 
  leucoph^eus 
  F. 
  

   Cuv., 
  has 
  therefore 
  been 
  retained 
  for 
  the 
  present 
  species. 
  

  

  