﻿LASIOPYGA 
  293 
  

  

  consequently 
  should 
  not 
  be 
  classed 
  as 
  subspecies. 
  That 
  

   eventually 
  some 
  may 
  be 
  discovered 
  to 
  have 
  intermediate 
  forms 
  

   between 
  them 
  and 
  the 
  nearest 
  allied 
  species 
  is 
  possible, 
  but 
  until 
  

   such 
  forms 
  are 
  found, 
  the 
  animals 
  in 
  question 
  should 
  have 
  

   specific 
  rank. 
  

  

  The 
  Keys, 
  to 
  those 
  who 
  have 
  but 
  slight 
  knowledge 
  of 
  the 
  

   species 
  of 
  Lasiopyga 
  are 
  useful, 
  but 
  in 
  all 
  save 
  the 
  Mona 
  and 
  

   Petaurista 
  groups, 
  the 
  subspecific 
  forms 
  are 
  omitted, 
  though 
  it 
  

   must 
  be 
  said 
  that 
  with 
  a 
  somewhat 
  doubtful 
  exception, 
  L. 
  

   nigripes, 
  all 
  the 
  so-called 
  subspecies 
  in 
  these 
  two 
  Keys, 
  are 
  

   undoubtedly 
  entitled, 
  so 
  far 
  as 
  we 
  have 
  knowledge 
  of 
  them 
  at 
  

   present, 
  to 
  a 
  full 
  specific 
  rank. 
  The 
  paper 
  is 
  illustrated 
  by 
  cuts 
  

   of 
  various 
  species 
  taken 
  from 
  life, 
  and 
  four 
  uncolored 
  plates 
  of 
  

   the 
  heads 
  of 
  various 
  allied 
  species. 
  The 
  principal 
  defect 
  in 
  a 
  

   paper 
  such 
  as 
  this, 
  treating 
  of 
  the 
  largest 
  group 
  of 
  the 
  Primates, 
  

   is, 
  that 
  the 
  Author 
  was 
  entirely 
  unacquainted 
  with 
  any 
  specimens 
  

   of 
  the 
  genus, 
  not 
  accessible 
  in 
  London 
  and 
  its 
  vicinity, 
  and 
  it 
  is 
  

   to 
  be 
  regretted, 
  that 
  when 
  he 
  undertook 
  so 
  important 
  a 
  task, 
  

   and 
  which 
  he 
  accomplished 
  so 
  far 
  as 
  his 
  material 
  permitted 
  with 
  

   conscientious 
  fidelity, 
  he 
  had 
  not 
  been 
  able 
  to 
  acquire 
  a 
  wider 
  

   view 
  and 
  firmer 
  grasp 
  of 
  his 
  subject, 
  which 
  an 
  investigation 
  of 
  

   the 
  far 
  greater 
  material 
  of 
  this 
  group 
  in 
  Continental 
  Museums 
  

   would 
  have 
  given 
  him. 
  

  

  1908. 
  Lonnberg, 
  Expedition 
  to 
  Kilimanjaro-Mweru. 
  

  

  In 
  this 
  work 
  a 
  Lasiopygus 
  from 
  Mt. 
  Kilimanjaro, 
  is 
  somewhat 
  

   doubtfully 
  separated 
  from 
  L. 
  albigularis 
  as 
  (C) 
  a. 
  kino- 
  

   botensis. 
  

  

  1909. 
  D. 
  G. 
  Elliot, 
  in 
  Annals 
  and 
  Magazine 
  of 
  Natural 
  History. 
  

   Lasiopyga 
  insignis 
  ; 
  L. 
  insolita 
  ; 
  L. 
  t. 
  griseisticta; 
  L. 
  rubella; 
  

   L. 
  grayi 
  pallida; 
  L. 
  sticticeps 
  and 
  L. 
  silacea 
  ; 
  first 
  described 
  

   under 
  Cercopithecus. 
  

  

  1910. 
  D. 
  G. 
  Elliot, 
  in 
  Annals 
  and 
  Magazine 
  of 
  Natural 
  History. 
  

   Lasiopyga 
  inobservata 
  first 
  described 
  as 
  Cercopithecus 
  in- 
  

   observatus. 
  

  

  1910. 
  0. 
  Thomas, 
  in 
  Annals 
  and 
  Magazine 
  of 
  Natural 
  History. 
  

  

  Lasiopyga 
  ascanius 
  whitesidei 
  first 
  described 
  as 
  Cercopithecus 
  

  

  a. 
  whitesidei. 
  

   1910. 
  D. 
  G. 
  Elliot, 
  in 
  Proceedings 
  of 
  the 
  United 
  States 
  National 
  

  

  Museum. 
  

  

  Lasiopyga 
  lutea 
  first 
  described 
  as 
  Cercopithecus 
  luteus. 
  

  

  