The British Museum contains the type of M. melanotm and the specimen of
M. brunneus which was figured in the Zoological Society’s “ Proceedings,” whilst
the type from which the external characters of M. brunneus and the details of its
anatomy were drawn up is deposited in the Indian Museum, Calcutta. With the
skin and skull of the type of M. melanotus I have compared the first-named specimen
of M. brunneus and its skull, also the skull of the type of the species in Calcutta.
I cannot detect a single character by which to separate them. The question now
suggests itself, Is this monkey really to he regarded as a native of Southern India ?
I think not, and that the probable history of M. melanotus is that it had been
taken to Madras from Burma in one of the ships that traded between that
town and Rangoon,—two ports which have had for a very long period regular
and frequent communication with each other. And what strengthens this supposition
is the circumstance that this form of monkey is unknown in Southern
India. I t appears to be a case similar to that of the JH. leoninus, Blyth, a female
of which was imported into the Andaman Islands from Burma, and was described
as M. andamanensis.
The type of M. melanotus and the specimen of M. brunneus in the British Museum
are both examples of the male sex and of nearly equal size and age, with similarly
formed short tails, and in these respects agree with the type of M. brunneus, which
was only slightly younger. On the upper surface of the head and along the hack
the fur is dark brown, approaching to blackish ; the sides and limbs are dark brown,
being slightly paler in 3f. brunneus. In JK. melanotus there is a distinct tendency
to annulation on the sides of the neck and body, on the shoulders, and on the
limbs, the annuli being pale golden-yellow and brown, and rather numerous on
each hair, the terminal points being dark brown or blackish. These annuli are but
feebly developed, and require the aid of reflected light to make them clearly visible.
The type which I described was a younger animal, and did not show any signs of
annulation ; but the other example in the British Museum, and which had shown
no annulation, so far as I am aware, before it left Calcutta, had evidently developed
it afterwards during its life in the London Zoological Gardens.
A large, red-faced monkey, with a stumpy tail like the previous specimens, was
purchased by the Zoological Society from a dealer in Liverpool, who could give no
information regarding its habitat. After living for some years in the Society’s
Gardens it died, and was deposited in the British Museum, where it is now stuffed,
and the skeleton and skull are preserved. In its general form it is exactly like
M. brumieus, but only much larger, and it differs from it and M. melanotus in the
general annulation of its hair all over the body even to the under parts, which,
however, are not so distinctly annulated as the upper surface. The characteristic
feature of the fur is the regularity and uniformity of the annulation, and the
great number of annuli which occur on each individual hair ; I have counted
as many as twelve or fourteen. These rings are of the same type as those I have
indicated as existing in a subordinate degree in M. melanotus and M. brunneus. I t is
also distinguished by the great length of its fur, which is generally 4 | inches long.
But M. brunneus and M. melanotus are also remarkable as young monkeys for the
length of their fur; and the idea at once presents itself on a close comparison
that they are only the young of this larger monkey. I t would further seem that
M. brunneus (type specimen) represents the youngest stage, before annulation has
commenced, the young being born with a purely uniform brown fur; the
M. brunneus of the British Museum and M. melanotus showing the commencement
and progress of annulation, which in them is confined to certain parts, but in
the end would have involved the whole of the fur as in the adult.
This large monkey was, I believe, correctly named by Dr. Sclater, in the printed
list of the animals living in the Society’s Gardens, as M. speciosus, I \ Cuvier. Mr.
Gerrard informs me that Dr. Gray never examined this specimen, and th a t during
his life-time it stood in the British Museum as M. speciosus, so that Dr. Gray’s
M. melanotus of Ogilby referred only to th a t type ; but this large monkey has now
been placed under the same specific name. Its red face, short, stumpy tail, little
more than an inch long and sparsely clad, its long fur “ plusieurs fois annelés de
brun et de roux clair,” a t once suggest its affinity to M. arctoides, Geoff. St.-Hilaire,
which is verified by comparing it with the figure of th a t type of this species given
in the “ Magasin de Zoologie ;” and the evidence of its identity with it is conclusive
when its skull is compared with the skull of M. arctoides figured by Blainville, the
British Museum skull of this specimen agreeing in every respect with the skull of
the type; and I am further convinced of the identity of the two by the personal
observation of both.
I now propose to consider whether the characters manifested by the skull of
M. melanotus, Ogilby, and the skulls of M. brunneus, Andr., so agree as to entitle
us to regard them as of one species; and if so, whether the details in which
they differ from M. arctoides, Is. Geoff., are to be viewed in any other light than as
appertaining to youth.
Here I may remark that all these specimens belong to the male sex.
The skull of the Liverpool specimen has the bicuspids and two permanent
molars fully through the jaw, but the incisors are only half exposed ; the last molar
is not above the margin of its alveolus. The palate is 2'18 inches long, and from
the internal alveolar margin of one side to that of the other, it is 0*97 in breadth
a t its middle, and of equal breadth as far forwards as the hinder border of the
canines, anterior to which it slightly contracts.
In the type of M. melanotus the permanent teeth which have cut the upper jaw
thoroughly, are the first molar, the first incisors, and the bicuspids ; the second
incisors are well exposed, but not to their whole length, which is also the case with
the second molar. The milk-canines have not been shed, and their successors have
not pierced the bone ; but the tip of the left is visible in its socket internal to the
milk-tooth, but on the right side the permanent tooth is not visible. The alveolar
arch over the last molar is only, feebly perforated, and the tooth, which can be