16 
THE MAMMALS OF EGYPT. 
and, in doing so, mentioned that a species of monkey very closely allied to the 
Callitriche or green monkey, Simia sdbao {sic), was very common at Sennaar and 
Fazoql; but in the sentence following he says, “ Cependant, d’apres les individus 
que j’ai rapportes des environs de Tile de Moqrat, M. F. Cuvier la regarde comme une 
nouvelle espece, et il lui a donne le nom de grivet,” and he refers to F. Cuvier s figure in 
the Hist. Nat. des Mammiferes. This, if correct, makes known a hitherto unrecognized 
fact, viz., that the monkeys of the genus Gercopithecus found along the bend of the 
Nile at Abu Hamed are typical representatives of the Grivet, or Cerco])ithecu8 griseus, 
F. Cuv. In view of the wide distribution of many so-called western species of 
Mammalia across Central Africa to the east, the question arises. Are the monkeys of 
Sennaar and Fazoql specifically identical with the Grivet from the island of Moqrat, or 
is it possible that they may prove to be referable to C. calhtrichusl No materials exist 
for the settlement of this question; but if Cailliaud’s statement is to be accepted, and if 
his specimens from the island of Moqrat really constituted the types of F. Cuviers 
Grivet (C. there can be no misunderstanding regarding either their character or 
their affinities. There is this to be said about the individuals on which Cailliaud states 
C. griseus, F. Cuv., was based, that they were not obtained by Cailliaud on his journey 
to Meroe, as that expedition was not entered upon until November 1819. It must, 
therefore, be concluded that he had taken them with him to France in February 1819, 
the date on u'hich he returned to Paris after having spent three years in various parts 
of Egypt, but more particularly in the Eastern Desert. In the account he has given 
of these travels ^ no mention is made of his having visited the island of Moqrat; but it 
should be borne in mind that that work did not profess to give a complete account of 
his travels from 1815 to 1818, as the second volume, the preparation of which had 
been intrusted to a member of the Academy, was seemingly never published, although 
the subscribers to the first volume had been impatiently awaiting its appearance. It 
seems probable, in view of Cailliaud’s distinct statement about F. Cuvier having 
regarded the specimens from the island of Moqrat as a new species, that, had the 
second volume been completed by the Academician, some mention by Cailliaud of his 
visit to the island would have been included in it and a reference likewise to the 
monkeys he obtained. Cailliaud arrived in Paris in February 1819, with his monkeys 
from the neighbourhood of the island of Moqrat; and in June of the same year 
F. Cuvier’s description of the Grivet appeared, but unaccompanied by any mention 
whence the animal was obtained, and indeed he only hazarded the suggestion that it 
was probably an African form. The specimen figured, he states, was a male which had 
been presented to the King’s Menagerie by M.M. . . .; but there is no reference to 
M. Cailliaud, so that the claim advanced by the latter, that the specimen figured by 
1 Yoy. a rOasis de Thebes dans les Anne'es 1815 a 1818. Tiiis work, the French edition of which I have 
not seen, was translated into English in Phillip’s iS'ew Yoy. & Travels, (3) vii. 1822. 
