190 
1841. 
1851. 
1853. 
1855. 
1856. 
1869. 
1896. 
PONGO 
I. Geoffroy, in Archives du Muséum @’ Histoire Naturelle, Paris. 
A young Sumatran Ourang is here named Simia bicolor. 
I. Geoffroy St. Hilaire, Catalogue des Mammiferes. 
Two species of Ourang are recognized under the genus Simia: 
S. satyrus Linn., and S. bicolor I. Geoff., both = Poneo 
PYGMZuS Hoppius. 
Blyth, m Journal of the Asiatic Society of Bengal. 
P. pyGMZus is here redescribed as Pithecus brooki, and Pithe- 
Cus OWEN. 
Blyth, mn Journal of the Asiatic Society of Bengal. 
PoNGco PYGMZUS redescribed as Pithecus curtus. 
R. Owen, m Transactions of the Zoological Society of London. 
In this paper the Author compares the skull of an Ourang from 
Borneo, which he named P. morio, with those of the P. satyrus 
Linn., (1766), = Ponco pyem#us Hoppius; and is not con- 
vinced that it represents a distinct species, for in his concluding 
remarks he says, “As to the primitive originality of the Pithecus 
morio in Borneo, I by no means entertain a decided opinion. 
Had the whole dental series been proportionally smaller, as it 
is in the Troglodytes niger in comparison with the Trog]. 
gorilla, there might have been more reason for concluding as 
to the distinction of the species.” 
A. R. Wallace, The Malay Archipelago. 
In this work the Author gives a full and interesting account 
of the habits of the Ourang, as observed by him in Borneo. 
Selenka, in Sitzgungsberichte Kénigliche Akademie der Wissen- 
schaften, Berlin. 
In this paper the Author describes the species and races he 
recognizes, establishing them upon the large collections of these 
animals obtained by him “on the right side of the river region 
of the Kapus”; founding his conclusions on “some variations 
of skull formation and on the milk and permanent teeth of 
these animals.” In this restricted district he establishes six 
races as follows: Pithecus satyrus landakensis; P. s. dadap- 
pensis; P. s. genepaiensis; P. s. skalauensis; and P. s. tuak- 
ensis; all = Ponco pycmz#us Hoppius, according to the inves- 
tigations of the writer, who could find no characters sufficiently 
distinctive in Selenka’s material in the Munich Museum by 
which these forms could be established, the variations being 
so great as to make it difficult if not impossible to find two 
skulls that agreed in their individual peculiarities. 
