> Natural- Historical Collections. 379 
though such be contrary to Sir James’s character. Now, this mark of ‘‘ hoary 
stipules’ does not even exist in any of the allies of H. vulgare that I have yet 
met with,—the nearest approach being to what is sometimes cultivated in our 
gardens as H. tomentosum, (but which is really H. croceum, a species from 
Spain and Barbary ;) even there, however, the stipules are green, though slightly 
pubescent, and certainly ciliated. Nor does the accurate Hooker take notice of 
this character in his Flora Scotica; but, on the contrary, says he can see no dif- 
ference between it and H. vulgare. Smith himself, likewise, when he first pub- 
lished the species, says, that the principal difference is in the greater hoariness of 
the whole plant; that this is subject to vary in cultivation; and that good cha- 
racters are yet wanting. Upon the whole then, I am rather inclined to think, 
that one must not trust to this character from the stipules, and that the plant is~ 
identical with, and “‘ not even a well-marked variety” of H. vulgare. 
7. C. polifolius. Smith’s remarks here are interesting : he states the pubes 
cence to be starry, (by which it differs ftom C. apenninus Lin., where he says 
it is simple) : the calyx slightly hairy, and its outer leaves fringed. Now this, 
agreeing well with a specimen from Brentdowns in my herbarium, does not at 
all apply to Hel. polifolium, Dec., a very scarce plant, which I only have from 
Laconi in Sardinia, in which the calyx is glabrous and shining: but what. is” 
remarkable, Smith’s plant is certainly identical with Helianth. apenninum, Dec., 
and of many other authors. Therefore in Decandolle’s prodromus, Hel. poli- 
folium (No. 105) must resume the name of H. splendens, given to it by La- 
marck ; and H. apenninum, Dec. (No. 101) receive the name of H. polifolium. 
This species is not then, as Smith states, confined to Britain, but is an extremely 
common plant in many places on the Continent, extending from Fontainbleau 
to Montpellier, and throughout Spain and Italy. But what becomes of the true 
C. apenninus ? Linneus says of it, “‘ foliis lanceolatis hirsutis,’’ and Smith, 
that it has ‘‘ a simple pubescence, and hoary calyx, without hairs on the ribs,” 
a double character that I have never yet found united on any of the white flower- 
ed species of this genus.. Perhaps Bentham is right in making them all varie- 
ties of Hel. apenninum or H. polifolium. 
The Entellus Monkey. (Semnopithecus Entellus. F. Cuv.)—Although there 
is reason to believe that thisis one of the most common Monkeys both of the 
Peninsula of Hindoostan and of the Islands of the Indian Archipelago, we are™ 
not aware that any other specimen than that which was lately exhibited in the 
Zoological Society’s Gardens had previously been brought alive to this country. 
A stuffed skin, but of a much smaller individual, in the Museum in Bruton 
Street, was also, we believe, unique in England. On the continent of Europe 
specimens appear to be almost equally rare. ‘The species was iirst made known 
by M. Dufresne, in 1797, from a skin in his possession, which was shortly after- 
wards figured by Audebert in his large work on the Monkeys, whence it was 
adopted by later zoologists. After an interval of more than twenty years the 
arrival of a living individual, of small size and immature age, at the Jardin du 
Roi in Paris, enabled M. Fréderic Cuvier to publish a second original figure, 
more valuable than the first as having been taken from the life. The same na- 
turalist has subsequently given a still more striking and characteristic likeness of 
the adult animal, taken from a drawing sent from India by M. Duvaucel. 
These figures and the observations which accompany them constitute the sum of 
all that has hitherto been known to science respecting this very remarkable and 
iteresting species. 
But it seems to have escaped the observation of naturalists that the animal in 
question had been most accurately described as a native of Ceylon by Thunberg in 
his travels in Europe, Asia, and Africa, publishedin Swedish at Upsalin 1793, and 
almost immediately afterwards translated intoGerman and English. It is truethat 
he has confounded it with the Wanderco; but this error extends no farther than the 
assumption of the name of that species, which he cites doubtfully, and with which 
his description has scarcely any featuresin common. The country nameby which he 
