CHARACTERS OF THE LEMURS AND TARSIUS. 



51 



airethra and vagina, which are comparatively close together. It 

 is significant that the vulva of this genus as a whole is less like 

 the vulva of the Galagos than that of the true Lemurs. It 

 approaches most nearly the vulva of L. varius (text-fig. 16, F, G). 



General Conclusions. 



The conclusions of general interest which have suggested them- 

 selves in the course of the investigations above detailed are 

 subjoined in the order of their importance : — 



1. In the case of Tarsius the structure of the upper lip and of 

 the nose severs the genus completely from the Lemurs and brings 

 it into line with the Pithecoid Primates. Taking this character 

 in conjunction with the nature of the placenta, the presence of 

 the postorbital partition, and other well-known features, it seems 

 that Hubrecht was quite right in removing Tarsius from the 

 Lemurs and placing it in the higher grade of Primates. I pro- 

 pose to give practical expression to this view by dividing the 

 Primates into two great series. For the first, comprising the 

 Lemurs, the old name Strepsirhini is available. For the second, 

 comprising Tarsius and the Pithecoidea, I suggest the title 

 Haplorhim. The Haplorhini will contain two divisions, the 

 Tarsioidea and the Pithecoidea *. 



2. With Tarsius eliminated from the Lemurs, the Strepsirhini 

 may be divided into the Chiromyoidea and the Lemuroidea. It 

 has been the fashion of late years to depreciate the characters of 

 Chiromys. Dr. Standing indeed gave the genus merely subfamily 

 rank under the Indrisidse, the latter being equivalent to the 

 Lemuridae. But that classification sacrificed the characters of 

 Chiromys to the hypothesis that the genus is a specialised off- 

 shoot of the Indrisoid stock. That may be true. Nevertheless, 

 the specialisation has proceeded so far, and in so many directions, 

 that it appears to me impossible to dispute the claim that the 

 Lemuridae and the Indrisidse are much more nearly akin to each 

 •other than either is to the Chiromyida?. In the description of 

 Chiromys the peculiarities of the teeth generally distract attention 

 from the curious cranial modifications correlated with the rodent 

 ■dentition, such as the immense si/,e of the premaxillae, which 

 reach the lachrymals and exclude the reduced maxillae from con- 

 tact with the nasals ; also the absence of the bony ridge closing 

 the glenoid behind and the longitudinal extension of the man- 

 dibular condyle, two correlated characters subservient to the 

 back and forth movement of the mandible well known in the 



* I prefer tins name to Anthropoidea because in ordinary terminology the title 

 " anthropoid," reasonably according to its meaning, lias become restricted to the 

 man-like Apes. A niarmozet can hardly be called " anthropoid," with any approach 

 to the real meaning of the word. But a marmozet and a man are alike "pithecoid." 



4* 



