192 
ON THE LEMURIDiE. 
^‘cinereus caudd ferrugined” which indeed is the exact colour of the former 
species, but not of the “ Microcebe roux” With respect to the “ Rat de Mada¬ 
gascar^’* of Buffon, we feel but little doubt as to which of the two species 
described above it ought to be referred. The figure given by Buffon is precisely 
that of the Murine Lemur; and the white line between the eyes is very 
apparent; the drawing was made from a living specimen in the possession of the 
Comptesse de Marsan, but no notice is taken of its colouring. The white stripe, 
however, between the eyes clearly proves that it is not the Microcebe roux^ and, 
consequently, that Geoffroy was mistaken in his views. Hence must we dis¬ 
tinguish between the Galago Madagascariensis of Geoff, in Ann,^ and Buffon's 
Rat de Madagascar, 
r There are two other Lemurine animals, respecting which we feel in considera¬ 
ble perplexity. We allude to the Lemur cinereus of Geoff., in Magaz. Encycl.^ 
and of Desmerest in Mammal,^ and to the Galago Demidoffii of G. Fischer, 
and of Geoffr., in Annales,, 19. 
The Galago Demidqffii —^respecting which Cuvier seems in doubt as regards 
its distinctness from the Little Macauco of Brown —is described as rufous 
brown, with a dusky muzzle, with ears shorter than the head, and a tail longer 
than the body, with a pencil-tuft at the tip. Size less than that of the Black 
Rat. With the habitat we are unacquainted. In this description we recognize 
the Microcebus pusillus. 
The Lemur cinereus is described as grey, with a slight tinge of fulvous, the 
under parts being white. Total length 10 inches. Habitat Madagascar. This 
is the Petit Maki of Buffon (Hist. Nat., Supp. vii.), who describes it as 
greyish, ^^jaspee de jaune pale —a somewhat indefinite account of colouring.—In 
the sketch of the Lemurs (see Annales du Mus., tom. 19, p. 162). Geoffroy 
observes, that this animal of Buffon appears to be the young of one of the true 
Lemurs, a point which we deem at least very doubtful. Buffon describes it as 
having a broad forehead, a short and pointed muzzle, and round prominent eyes. 
Its total length, following the curve of the back, is 14 inches, of which the tail 
is five. Judging from Buffon*s figure and description (the ground of all subse¬ 
quent notices), we feel inclined to refer the animal to the genus Microcebus ; but 
are unwillingly compelled to leave it at present as a doubtful species. 
The next genus to which we turn is Loris (Stenops, Illig.). The genus 
Loris was first instituted by Geoffroy, who afterwards divided it into two 
genera, viz. Loris and Nycticebus, upon very untenable grounds. The genus 
Nycticebus is distinguished, according to this naturalist, by the presence of only 
two incisors in the upper jaw, while the genus Loris, of which the Slender 
Loris is the type, is characterized by the presence of four incisors in the upper 
jaw (Vide Cours de V Hist. Nat., p. 40 J, and by the greater length of the 
