CoLos7vs 135 
The above description was taken from a specimen in the Berlin 
Museum. The type was in the Museum of the Zoological Society of 
London, but seems to have disappeared. The description differs 
slightly from that of the type which reads as follows: “The Society’s 
specimen measures two feet five inches from the upper lip to the 
origin of the tail, which organ is itself two feet eight inches in 
length. All the upper parts of the body are of a light smoky blue, 
very similar to that of the common Mangabey (Cercopithecus fulig- 
mosus), rather darker on the shoulders than elsewhere and copiously 
tinged with red on the occiput; the color of the back descends some 
way down on the external face of the forearms and thighs, and also 
a short distance but more obscure, on the upper surface of the tail. 
With these exceptions, all the rest of the extremities, the arms, fore- 
arms, thighs, legs, hands, feet and tail, are of a uniform light or 
brick red, and a more intense shade of the same color extends up the 
forepart of the shoulders and spreads over the breast, throat and 
whiskers, which latter are long, directed downwards on the cheeks, 
and backwards into long pointed tufts behind the ears, which are 
small, round, naked, and furnished with a distinct helox, in allwespects 
like that of the human subject. The belly and flanks are of a dirty 
yellowish white, and a circle of black stiff hairs passes over the eyes. 
The face, palms of the hands and soles of the feet are naked and 
of a violet color; the callosities are of moderate size.”” In the Library 
of Entertaining Knowledge, Menageries, 1838, Ogilby, (as the Author 
of the article is presumed to be, the book and the text being anony- 
mous), gives a wood cut figure, useless for identification, of this species 
under the name of rufo-fuliginosus, for as the writer naively says, “the 
epithet rufo-fuliginosus more accurately expresses the colors of the 
animal, and contains within itself a short, but very accurate definition 
of the species; and as it has since been ascertained to be identical 
with the animal there described as Colobus temmincki, we have de- 
termined to suppress both the specific names there given, and to sub- 
stitute that here proposed in order to avoid the confusion which 
might otherwise attend the double synonym.’ The italics are mine, 
and if there is any better way to create confusion in nomenclature 
than by the way here adopted, I do not know it. As regards the 
species which is compared in the above extract, it may be said that C. 
TEMMINCKI appears to be distinct. The color of the “front of head 
and upper part of back light smoky blue,” is entirely unlike the species 
compared Cercopithecus (Cercocebus) ‘fuliginosus = CERCOCEBUS 
ZTHIOPS Schreb., which has the head speckled yellow and brownish 
