OCR Text |
Show 1867.] MR. ST. GEORGE MIVART ON THE LEMURIDAE. 967 whereas the usual colour of M. pusillus is a very red brown. But all the specimens in the Paris Museum are not alike in colour, aud one especially is very pale. The difference in colour alone should not, therefore, I think, prevent the union of C. smithii with M. pusillus ; but, on account of the incisors, I think it better to keep the two forms distinct for the present, till it is proved that the proportions of the incisors are subject to a certain individual variation as they are in Lndris brevicaudatus*. The specimen in spirits in British Museum, which was named by Mr. Waterhouse " Microcebus pusillus " *f- (but which is now labelled Cheiroyaleus smithii, and has been described by Dr. Gray under that name J), has the upper incisors subequal, and in all probability was rightly named at first. The third form, Cheirogaleus typicus, the typical specimen of which is also in the British Museum, agrees with C. milii of Geoffroy in the caniniform first upper premolar, in the great predominance in size of the first over the second upper incisor, also to all appearance in the relative shortness of the tarsus, and, finally, in the short ears. It is described by Dr. Gray§ as "reddish brown; cheeks, throat, and beneath white." The Paris specimens, on the other hand, have the underparts white, but the back is of a delicate fawn-brown ; but the difference does not seem to me of such moment as to render it other than probable that C. typicus and C. milii are one and the same species. The fact that the typical specimen of C. typicus is not quite adult should not be forgotten, as age may produce some change in the colour. In size it very nearly indeed equals the specimens of C. milii of Paris. Thus it may be that the seven species which I before enumerated (but which separate enumeration I stated to be only provisional, and by no means intended to imply m y conviction of their specific distinctness ||) will have to be reduced in number if the approximations above indicated turn out to be really necessary. Taking M. pusillus as the type of Microcebus, M. minor and M. myoxinus will be the second and third species of that genus. C. furcifer, on the other hand, will range itself side by side with C. milii in the genus Cheirogaleus, where it was placed by Isidore Geoff. St.-Hilaire^-an approximation evidently natural when the two skins are viewed side by side, and not to be disputed by any one unprepared to erect C. furcifer into a new and distinct genus, on the ground of its very elongated first upper premolar and its before described tarsal structure. But even M. pusillus and M. myoxinus differ from each other as to these points (though in a less degree) ; so that if the new species (M. coquereli of Pollen) presents another * See P. Z. S. 1866, p. 154, note *. f The specimen came from the Museum of the Zoological Society, and while there was so labelled by Mr. Waterhouse (see Cat. of Mus. of Zool. Soc. 2nd edit. p. 12. no. 89). + Loc. cit. p. 143. § L. c. p. 142. || P. Z. S. 1864, p. 637. 1[ Cat, des Primates, p. 77. |