202 
ON THE LEMURID^.. 
lar, but somewliat larger. The canines above, if canines they may be called, are 
compressed, with a sharp conical tubercle, and ah anterior and posterior set of 
pectinations. The molars on each side are five, crowned with sharp, insectivo¬ 
rous tubercles; the first has two and a small inner notch; the rest have three, of 
which one is on the inside, and two are on the margin of the crown. The crowns 
incline inwardly. The incisors below are six, the four central close together, and 
deeply and finely pectinated ; the two posterior incisors, removed at a small dis¬ 
tance from the rest, more coarsely pectinated; the four central incisors project 
horizontally, and meet the gum, covering the intervening part of the intermaxil¬ 
lary bones, between the upper incisors, with the flat inner surface. 
The canines resemble those of the upper jaw. The molars on each side are 
five; the first is elongated, with a central conical projection, an anterior pecti¬ 
nated ridge, and three small but acute posterior eminences; the other molars 
have four and even five acute tubercles; they incline outwardly. 
Such is the dentition of this extraordinary animal, to which Bontius applied 
the name of Vespertilio admirabilis; an animal which, in the consideration of 
its characters, has perplexed every naturalist. Petiver termed it Chatsingi 
(Cat-ape), Seba Felts volans iernatanus^ Linn^us Lemur volans. Pallas re¬ 
garded it, and with justice, as a form in a certain sense isolated, or rather as 
blending in itself a mixture of the characters of others, and established for it, 
the name of Galeopithecus^ a term having the same signification with that used 
by Petiver. 
“ Must the Galeopitheque” says Geoffroy St. Hilaire, be regarded as a 
Bat, according to the views of Bontius ? In truth, the name of ‘ wonderful ’ 
Cadmirabilis) would then be justly its due as its distinguishing title, since it 
wants the main character of that family,”—viz. the long slender fingers, serving 
as supports to a membranous wing. Yet, on the other hand, he observes, it is 
still less a Lemur. It is not, we own, a Lemur, yet does it appear to us that 
its affinities, intermediate as they render it, tend on the whole to place it on the 
border line of the Lemur family. We do not agree with Geoffroy that “ its 
head is altogether that of a true carnassier.” The Lemurine type of structure, 
though modified, is not lost in it, nor is there any other type to which, with all 
its variations from the normal form, it can be referred. With a tendency in its 
organization to the Bats, the Galeopithecus seems attracted as it were to the organ¬ 
ization of the Lemurs, and affords a subject for the philosophic naturalist to 
study, when, taking a wide survey of the relationships of organic forms, he ba¬ 
lances their affinities, and attempts to discover the true natural classification of 
animals. 
Where Geoffroy St. Hilaire has left a subject in abeyance, and where great 
naturalists have differed, we ought to speak with diffidence. It may ultimately 
