78 PYGATHRIX 
his little brown monkey with Edwards’ black one, for he nowhere 
indicates that he knew that any species of black monkey had brown or 
red young, and he had no knowledge of the locality of his species as he 
quotes Guiana, as given by Edwards for the habitat. 
It is clearly impossible, therefore, to prove that Schreber’s specimen 
was a PYGATHRIX, or to connect this seven inch brownish red example 
with the black monkey of Java, or in fact with any species known, and it 
can only be regarded as indeterminable, and Simia maura Schreber, 
must be dropped from the list of the Primates. 
Now the question arises what is the name for the Javan black 
Monkey? Messrs. Thomas and Wroughton decide that it should 
be pyrrha Horsfield, described from a female that had retained the 
reddish color of the young, never having assumed the black pelage of 
the adult, and reject auRATA previously given by E. Geoffroy, also to 
a red female, which had not assumed the adult coloration, because, they 
“do not think the evidence for the identification of Geoffroy’s C. 
AURATUS with this monkey is sufficient to justify the use of his name.” 
The knowledge which these Authors had of Geoffroy’s type appears 
to have been derived from his description only, and which, unfor- 
tunately in the majority of cases, is all that Authors usually have 
to assist them in reaching a decision. But the Type of P. AURATA 
still remains in the Paris Museum, and resembles so closely red 
females sent by Mr. Shortridge from Java to the British Museum, that 
there can be no hesitation in ascribing it to the same species. Geoffroy’s 
type is a female, its locality unknown, but the black hairs intermingled 
with the golden yellow ones of the tail is a strong indication of its 
affinity to the Javan black PycaTHrix. 
Geoffroy described previously on the same page the Javan species 
as Cercopithecus maurus; the adult as black; and the first and second 
ages as more or less red. There would be no question what name the 
species should properly bear if it were not for the doubt as to what was 
the animal Erxleben and Schreber called maurus. If it was a 
PycaTurrx, and not this species, it would invalidate the name for the 
present genus, but as it can never now be determined what species 
maurus, as employed by Erxleben and Schreber, really represented, it 
is better to drop the name and take that of auraTa, although the latter 
is misleading as regards the color of the adult. Geoffroy’s type is 
without a doubt a red female of the black Javan Pycaturix and is the 
same as pyrrhus Hodgson, and the name auraTa has priority. 
