﻿

  290 
  LASIOPYGA 
  

  

  1902. 
  /. 
  Anderson, 
  Zoology 
  of 
  Egyptian 
  Mammals. 
  

  

  Two 
  species 
  are 
  here 
  given: 
  C. 
  cethiops 
  (nee 
  Linn.), 
  = 
  L. 
  

  

  griseoviridis 
  (Desm.) 
  ; 
  and 
  C. 
  pyrrhonotus 
  which 
  is 
  an 
  

  

  Erythrocebus. 
  

   1902. 
  Neumann, 
  in 
  Sitzungsberichte 
  Gesellschaft 
  Naturforschender 
  

  

  Freunde. 
  

  

  Lasiopyga 
  hilgerti, 
  and 
  L. 
  ellenbecki 
  = 
  L. 
  hilgerti, 
  first 
  

  

  described 
  under 
  Cercopithecus. 
  

  

  1904. 
  Pocock, 
  in 
  Proceedings 
  of 
  the 
  Zoological 
  Society 
  of 
  London. 
  

   Lasiopyga 
  sclateri 
  described 
  for 
  the 
  first 
  time 
  as 
  Cercopithe- 
  

   cus 
  sclateri. 
  

  

  1905. 
  Matschie, 
  in 
  Sitzungsberichte 
  Gesellschaft 
  Naturforschender 
  

   Freunde. 
  

  

  Lasiopyga 
  kandti 
  first 
  described 
  as 
  Cercopithecus 
  kandti. 
  

  

  1905. 
  Forbes, 
  in 
  Nature. 
  

  

  Lasiopyga 
  preussi 
  (Matschie), 
  redescribed 
  as 
  Cercopithecus 
  

   crossi. 
  

  

  1907. 
  0. 
  Thomas, 
  in 
  Proceedings 
  of 
  the 
  Zoological 
  Society 
  of 
  Lon- 
  

   don. 
  

   Lasiopyga 
  denti 
  first 
  described 
  as 
  Cercopithecus 
  denti. 
  

  

  1907. 
  R. 
  I. 
  Pocock, 
  in 
  Proceedings 
  of 
  the 
  Zoological 
  Society 
  of 
  Lon- 
  

   don. 
  

  

  This 
  somewhat 
  elaborate 
  paper 
  on 
  the 
  species 
  of 
  Lasiopyga, 
  

   is 
  entitled 
  "A 
  Monographic 
  Revision 
  of 
  the 
  Genus 
  Cercopithe- 
  

   cus/' 
  and 
  contains 
  descriptions 
  of 
  nearly 
  all 
  the 
  species 
  de- 
  

   scribed 
  up 
  to 
  the 
  date 
  of 
  its 
  publication. 
  The 
  Author's 
  material 
  

   for 
  his 
  undertaking 
  was 
  inadequate, 
  consisting 
  of 
  the 
  skins 
  in 
  

   the 
  Collection 
  of 
  the 
  British 
  Museum, 
  and 
  the 
  skins 
  and 
  living 
  

   members 
  of 
  the 
  genus 
  in 
  the 
  Menagerie 
  of 
  the 
  Zoological 
  

   Society 
  in 
  Regent's 
  Park, 
  London. 
  This 
  material, 
  though 
  con- 
  

   siderable 
  in 
  number 
  of 
  specimens, 
  gave 
  the 
  Author 
  no 
  personal 
  

   knowledge 
  of 
  many 
  species 
  in 
  Continental 
  Museums 
  not 
  repre- 
  

   sented 
  in 
  the 
  British 
  Museum, 
  and 
  thus 
  placed 
  him 
  at 
  a 
  dis- 
  

   advantage. 
  Cranial 
  characters, 
  which 
  are 
  of 
  supreme 
  im- 
  

   portance 
  in 
  the 
  discrimination 
  of 
  species 
  were 
  not 
  considered 
  

   at 
  all, 
  for 
  the 
  reason 
  as 
  he 
  states, 
  that 
  "lack 
  of 
  proper 
  material 
  

   has 
  prevented 
  me 
  from 
  making 
  use 
  of 
  skull 
  characters/' 
  and 
  

   so 
  at 
  the 
  outset 
  he 
  was 
  deprived 
  of 
  one 
  of 
  the 
  most 
  important 
  

   methods 
  of 
  determining 
  species. 
  

  

  The 
  Author 
  commences 
  with 
  a 
  not 
  entirely 
  complete 
  List 
  

   of 
  the 
  genera 
  proposed 
  for 
  the 
  Guenons, 
  and 
  their 
  types, 
  

  

  