174 Proceedings of the Royal Physical Society. 



The animal belongs to the Family of the Lemurs, Lemurina 

 s. Prosimii, and to the first division of the family which is 

 distinguished by Van der Hoeven in his valuable " Handbook 

 of Zoology" (translated by the Rev. W. Clark, M.D., London, 

 1858), as follows:— 



Phalanx 1. Nail of the Index alone of the soles incurved, 

 subulate. Upper incisor teeth four, in pairs. 



A. With tarsus not elongate. 



Under this great subdivision, it belongs to the 



Genus Stenops, Illig. (genera Loris and Nycticebus, 

 Geoff.) 



r • * »7 4 . 1-1 7 6-6 ' 



Incisor teeth ^, canines j — j, molars g~g« Lars short, 



rounded. Eyes large, approximate. Index of hand short, 

 not longer than pollex. Tail short, or none. 



Van der Hoeven subdivides the Genus Stenops into the 

 three following sections : — ■ 



(a) Tail short. Index of hand very short, resembling an 

 unarmed tubercle. (Perodicticus, Bennett.) 



(Sp.) Stenops potto, Lemur potto, Gm., Nycticebus potto, 

 Geoffr., Perodicticus Geoffroyi, Benn. Gold Coast of 

 Guinea. Potto, Bosman. 

 (6) Tail very short (Nycticebus, Geoffr). 



(Sp.) Steriops tardigradus, Auct., Lemur tardigradus,!^. 

 Bengal, Siam, Sumatra, Borneo. Stenops javanicus, 

 nob., Nycticebus javanicus, Geoffr. 

 (c) Tail, none {Loris, Geoffr. Body slender ; eyes very 

 large, almost contiguous. Nose acute, sub-ascending). 



(Sp.) Stenops gracilis, Loris gracilis, Geoffr., Lemur 

 tardigradus, L. Ceylon. 

 The animal, now exhibited, belongs apparently to the first of 

 these subdivisions (a.) ; although, with reference to the first 

 character of this subdivision — that taken from the length of 

 the tail — it agrees better with, and would therefore seem more 

 naturally to come under, the second subdivision (b) ; the dis- 

 tinguishing and peculiar characteristic, however, of the sub- 

 division (a) seems to be the undeveloped index finger, and with 

 this my specimen exactly corresponds. The length of the tail 

 would appear, therefore, to be rather doubtful as a distinctive 



