﻿192 
  PITHECUS 
  

  

  osus, 
  and 
  this 
  name 
  has 
  since 
  been 
  applied 
  to 
  both 
  the 
  Macaque 
  of 
  

   Japan 
  and 
  the 
  Indian 
  Macaque 
  afterwards 
  named 
  arctoides 
  by 
  I. 
  

   Geoffroy. 
  There 
  are 
  but 
  three 
  very 
  short 
  tailed 
  Macaques 
  to 
  which 
  

   Cuvier's 
  name 
  could, 
  probably, 
  have 
  been 
  applied: 
  the 
  Japanese 
  

   species 
  ; 
  the 
  arctoides 
  Geoff. 
  ; 
  and 
  the 
  nemestrinus 
  Linn. 
  The 
  latter 
  

   with 
  its 
  black 
  cap 
  can 
  be 
  at 
  once 
  removed 
  as 
  answering 
  neither 
  

   Cuvier's 
  figure 
  nor 
  description 
  ; 
  and 
  it 
  would 
  not 
  be 
  at 
  all 
  likely, 
  though 
  

   possible, 
  that, 
  at 
  the 
  time 
  Cuvier 
  published 
  his 
  description, 
  a 
  speci- 
  

   men 
  of 
  a 
  Macaque 
  from 
  Japan 
  would 
  come 
  into 
  his 
  possession, 
  as 
  

   Japan 
  was 
  closed 
  to 
  the 
  world 
  at 
  that 
  date, 
  and 
  the 
  exportation 
  of 
  

   specimens 
  of 
  Natural 
  History 
  would 
  be 
  most 
  improbable. 
  Cuvier 
  does 
  

   not 
  state 
  where 
  Duvaucel 
  saw 
  the 
  animal 
  he 
  drew, 
  and 
  we 
  have 
  no 
  

   information 
  on 
  that 
  point. 
  However, 
  both 
  description 
  and 
  figure 
  

   fairly 
  represent 
  the 
  animal 
  from 
  Burma 
  and 
  Cochin 
  China, 
  etc. 
  and 
  

   the 
  latter 
  does 
  not 
  exhibit 
  the 
  long 
  loose 
  fur 
  of 
  the 
  Japanese 
  Macaque, 
  

   but 
  shows 
  the 
  short 
  more 
  compact 
  fur 
  of 
  the 
  better 
  known 
  species. 
  

   The 
  evidence, 
  therefore, 
  would 
  seem 
  to 
  show 
  that 
  Cuvier's 
  species 
  is 
  

   the 
  Macaque 
  afterwards 
  described 
  by 
  I. 
  Geoffroy, 
  and 
  not 
  the 
  one 
  from 
  

   Japan. 
  

  

  Anderson 
  in 
  Proc. 
  Zool. 
  Soc. 
  Lond., 
  1874, 
  p. 
  652, 
  states 
  that 
  he 
  

   compared 
  a 
  specimen 
  of 
  his 
  M. 
  brunneus 
  with 
  Geoffroy's 
  type 
  of 
  M. 
  

   arctoides 
  in 
  the 
  Paris 
  Museum, 
  and 
  that 
  these 
  are 
  not 
  the 
  same, 
  but 
  

   does 
  not 
  indicate 
  in 
  what 
  the 
  difference 
  exists. 
  He 
  farther 
  remarks 
  

   that 
  M. 
  brunneus 
  is 
  more 
  closely 
  allied 
  to 
  M. 
  speciosus 
  of 
  Japan 
  than 
  

   it 
  is 
  to 
  M. 
  arctoides. 
  In 
  the 
  volume 
  for 
  the 
  year 
  1876, 
  p. 
  332, 
  however, 
  

   according 
  to 
  Sclater, 
  he 
  retracts 
  his 
  previous 
  opinion 
  and 
  now^onsiders 
  

   M. 
  brunneus 
  and 
  M. 
  arctoides 
  the 
  same. 
  A 
  specimen 
  in 
  the 
  British 
  

   Museum 
  from 
  the 
  Zoological 
  Society 
  has 
  no 
  tail, 
  and 
  small 
  callosities, 
  

   and 
  resembles 
  very 
  much 
  Gray's 
  melanotus 
  ( 
  !) 
  . 
  It 
  is 
  a 
  young 
  individual 
  

   with 
  the 
  last 
  molar 
  in 
  both 
  jaws 
  not 
  having 
  yet 
  appeared, 
  the 
  upper 
  

   canines 
  still 
  represented 
  by 
  the 
  milk 
  teeth, 
  and 
  only 
  the 
  points 
  of 
  the 
  

   lower 
  canines 
  visible 
  in 
  the 
  mandible. 
  In 
  color 
  it 
  is 
  dark 
  brown 
  or 
  chest- 
  

   nut 
  with 
  the 
  dorsal 
  region 
  quite 
  black. 
  The 
  hairs 
  on 
  head, 
  flanks 
  and 
  

   arms 
  are 
  but 
  faintly 
  annulated. 
  There 
  is 
  no 
  tail 
  at 
  all, 
  and 
  there 
  is 
  a 
  

   crest 
  of 
  hair 
  on 
  back 
  of 
  head, 
  and 
  the 
  callosities 
  are 
  small 
  and 
  shaped 
  

   something 
  like 
  a 
  parallelogram 
  ; 
  so 
  that 
  the 
  skin 
  resembles 
  very 
  much 
  

   a 
  young 
  Cynopithecus, 
  but 
  the 
  skull 
  has 
  not 
  the 
  broad 
  rostrum 
  of 
  the 
  

   members 
  of 
  that 
  genus, 
  and 
  is 
  that 
  of 
  a 
  young 
  macaque, 
  so 
  if 
  there 
  has 
  

   been 
  no 
  mistake, 
  and 
  the 
  skull 
  really 
  belongs 
  to 
  the 
  specimen, 
  the 
  

   example 
  must 
  be 
  referred 
  to 
  Pithecus, 
  otherwise 
  I 
  should 
  consider 
  it 
  

   a 
  Cynopithecus 
  niger 
  juv. 
  The 
  specimen 
  was 
  presented 
  by 
  the 
  

  

  