26 
THE MAMMALS OE EGYPT. 
therein the human face was plainly visible. It had a lion’s mouth and the teeth of a 
cat. It was slender about the flanks, and wholly of a reddish-yellow colour ; the face 
was black and bearded all round, and since the beard was white its face resembled 
that of a venerable old man; the tail Mms long and reddish. This monkey was 
called by Brisson i “ Le Singe roux d’Egypte,” and consequently is identical with 
C. pyrrhonotus. Hemp. & Ehrenb. 
ForskaH, while passing through Egypt to Arabia, about the year 1760, observed that 
a monkey known as ‘ Nisnas ’ was found in Nubia, and since his day it has been 
ascertained that this term is applied along with others to the species under discussion. 
Cailliaud 3, in his account of the different objects of natural history collected on his 
journey, said:—“Je me procurai, au Sennar, le patas a bandeau blanc de Buffon, 
Simia rubra de Linne. La couleur de cette guenon est tres-rousse; I’espece n’en est 
pas commune dans le pays.” 
Ehrenberg relates that whilst he was in the province of Dongola with Hemprich, in 
1822, the same year in which Cailliaud was at Sennaar, he met some merchants 
returning from Dar-Eur with a young male red monkey, which he says was as like as 
possible to the ‘ Cepus ’ of the ancients! He bought it and took it alive with him to 
Berlin in 1826, where it lived for one year, after having been in continement for five 
years! He regarded it as distinct from the Senegal monkey, and described it in 1829 
for the first time. A full account of it appeared in the ‘ Symbolae Physicse ’ s. This 
seems to have been the only specimen obtained by Hemprich and Ehrenberg, and 1 
can find no verification of Schlegel’s statement ^ that Ehrenberg “ I’a tue dans ces 
memes contrees [Kordofan and Dar-Fur] et, en outre, dans le Sennaar,” because he did 
not visit any of the districts of the Nile to the south of Korti and Ambukol. 
Ehrenberg, however, relates that he believed he had seen a female of C. jyyrrhonotiis 
at Alexandria, and mentions that it had a more graceful and slighter shape than the 
male, and that in its appearance it approached somewhat closely to C. patas. He did 
not purchase it, because it had no tail and had evidently degenerated by captivity. All 
its colours were paler than those of the male, its teeth were less strong, and the skin 
of its face was less black, being of a dusky shade. 
1 Eeg. Anim. 1756, p. 210. 
2 Descr. An. 1775, p. iii.l 
3 Voy. a Meroe, iv. 1827, p. 267. 
^ Verli. Ges. naturf. Er. Berl. i. 1829, p. 406. 
® The article on C. pyrrJionotus in the ‘ Symbolse Physicse ’ bears the date Aug. 1832, although Pars I. 
‘ Zoologia,' is dated 1829 on the titlepage of the volume. The former date must be wrong if Valenciennes’s 
article, livr. 64, t. vii., on this species in the Hist. Kat. des Mammif. was correctly dated Xov. 1830, 
because he refers in a footnote to Ehrenberg’s plate 10 in the ‘ Symbolse Physicse ’ depicting this species. 
® Mus. d’Hist. Nat. des Pays-Bas, vii. 1876 p 85. 
