| OCR Text |
Show 248 MR. ST. GEORGE MIVART ON INDRIS DIADEMA. [Mar. 14, authorized me to communicate the results of my examination to the Zoological Society. Before proceeding to do so, however, I am desirous of correcting an error of nomenclature in m y previous communication. The Woolly Lemur is there described under the generic name Microrhynchus, which I had adopted because it was the original one proposed by M . Jourdan in 1834. Professor Peters, however, has been kind enough to call m y attention to the fact that this generic term was at the time of its proposal by M . Jourdan already appropriated, it having been employed in the group Coleoptera as long ago as the year 1823. Under these circumstances I think the generic name Avahis should have been adopted (as was done by M . Isid. Geoff. St.-Hilaire*), as that term was proposed in I835*f; the other generic designations (Habrocebus of Wagner £ and Semnocebus of Lesson §) having both appeared in works which have each on their titlepage the date 1840. This question, however, is of little importance, if, as I now believe, both terms must be abandoned. The examination of the skull sent by Dr. Peters has convinced me that sufficient grounds do not exist for the generic separation of the three forms [| of Indrisince, all of which I shall therefore henceforth designate by the oldest *]f and very generally received generic name Indris,-the three being respectively L. brevicaudatus, L. diadema (instead of Propithecus), and I. laniger (instead of Microrhynchus or Avahis). The subject of the present communication is, as is well known, as yet a rare animal. Mounted skins, indeed, exist in the British Museum, but no extracted skulls or other bones of the species are preserved in the osteological collections either of that institution or of the College of Surgeons. No adult skull or complete dentition has hitherto been figured; but the immature condition has been represented by De Blainville**. I find, as I strongly suspected ff, that the cranium of this species does closely resemble the crania of the other Lndrisince; and, to avoid repetition, it may be understood to correspond completely with * Catalogue des Primates, p. 68. t Is. Geoff. St.-Hilaire, ' Lecons de Mammalogie,' published by M . Gervais, p. 23 (1835). \ Schreber, Suppl. i. p. 257. § Species des Mammiferes, p. 209. || This union has already been proposed by M. Vinso, who has described a fourth form, under the name Indris albus; but as scarcely any osteological characters are given, I can only allude to it in the present communication. It may be remarked, however, that if, as is asserted, the tail is somewhat longer than that of the common Indri, it so far tends to justify the union of I. brevicaudatus in one genus with the other Indrisince (see Ann. des Sc. Nat. xix. p. 253; and Revue et Mag. de Zoologie, 1862, p. 494). The muzzle is said to be shorter than in /. brevicaudatus; but the form of the skull and the dentition appear to be as in that species. If Proposed by Geoff. St.-Hilaire, ' M e m . sur les Mafas' (1796), where, however, it is without the final s, which appears in ' Tabl. des Quadrum.' (1812). Uliger's term Lichanotus was proposed in 1811. ** Osteographie, Primates, Lemurs, pis. 8 & 9. tt P Z. S. 1866, p. 165. |
