The Wrinhlei Bahoon, Slaw, Gen. Zool.. vol. i. p t.1, 1800, p. S3.
The Bandar, Hodgson, Joum. As. Soc. 1832, vol. i. p. 336.
Simla erythreea, Schreber, Saugeth. Snppl. pi. ™i. o. fig. BnlEon.
Inrmas (?) Smiafuha) Shaw, Gen. Zool. vol. i. pt. 1,1800, p. 51.
Inmrn rheme, Geoffroy St.-Hff. Ann. du Mus. vol. x.x. 1812, p. Beitr mr_ ZooI
1820, p. 17; Blyth, Journ. As. Soc. vol. xvi. 1847, p. 781; Cat. Mamm. As. Soc. Bengal.
1868, p. 8; Jerdon, Mamm. Ind. 1867, p. 11. _ _
Pitheme rheme, Desm. nouT. Diet. d’Hist. Nat. toL xviii. 1817, p. 825 ; Griffith, An. Kingd-
vol. t . 1827, p. IS. rC I'firSl'vByys
Maeacue erythroeue, Cuv. Hist. Nat. des Mamm. Oct. 1819, pi. xxxvm,juv. ; March 1821, pi. 36 J ;
May 1821, pi. xxxix; March 1825, pi. xl; Is. Geoff. St.-Hfl. Zool. du Voy. de Bélanger,
1834, p. 59 ; Cat. Méthod. des Marnmif. 1851, p. 30 j Gerrals, Hist. Nat. des Mammif. 1884,
p 91, fig. head J et $ ; Swinhoe, Proc. Zool. Soc'. 1870, p. 226.
Maeame rheme, Desmarest, Mamm. 1820, p. 66, pi. xii. fig. 2 (Buffon) ; -Dirt, des So. Nat-
toI xxvii 1823, p. 468; Lesson, Man. de Mamm. 1827, p. 42; G. Cut.-Big. An. nony. ed.
vol i 1829 p. 95; Escher, Syn. Mam. 1829, p. 29; Waterhouse, Cat. Mam. Mus. Zool. Soc.
Lend. 1888, 2nd ed. p .'8; Lesson, Sp. dès Mammif. 1840, p. 95; Gray, Hand-hst Mamm.
B M 1843 p 8; Blyth, Joum. As. Soc. Beng. vol. xii. 1843, p. 174; yol. xm. 1844,
nu 471-476; Schinx, Syn. Mamm. vol. i. 1844, p. 57; Gray, Hodg. List, Nepal, Mamm.
1846 p 2; Horsfield, Cat. Mam: E. Ind. Co. Mus. 1851, p. 19 ; Hutton, Proc. Zool. Soc. 1867,
p. 951 ; Gray, Cat. Monkeys and Lemurs, B. M. 1870, p. 81 ; Sclaier, Proc. Zool. Soc. 1871,
Innune ^Maimon) erythroeue, Wagner, Schreber, Saugeth. Suppl. vol. i. 1840, pi. 142, p. yiii. c. fig.
Buffon.
Papio rheme, Ogilby, Madr. Joum. Lit. & Sc. vol. xii: 1840, p. 144. . I
Maeame (Pithex) oinope, Hodgson, Joum. As. Soo. Beng. vol. ix. 1840, p. 1212, fig. head, p. 1213 ,
vol. x. 1841, p. 908; Cal. Joum. Nat. Hist. vol. 9 1842, p. 212; Ann. & Mag. Nat.
Hist. vol. viii. 1842,' p. 315, fig. head ; Cal. Joum. Nat. Hist. vol. iv. 1844, p. 285.
Maeacue oinope, Gray, Hand-list Mamm. B. M. 1843, p. 8.
Itinuue (Ptheme) erythroeue, Wagner, Schreber,Saugeth. Suppl. vol. v. 1855, p. 56.
Pitheeue (Maeame) erythroeue, Dahlbom, Stud. Zool. Pam. Reg. Ann. 1856, pp. 116,119.
hnnue aeeameneie, Blyth, Joum. As. Soc. Beng. yol. x x x iT . 1865, p. 192.-
I obtained at Momien a monkey so closely resembling M. rhesus, tbat I have
no course left b ut to describe it as sucb, although it exhibits at the same time some
variation from the Indian form. I t is also not unlike M. assamensts, but is distinguished
from it by its longer body and tail and more slender limbs. This animal,
(Plate I I I ) , it was alleged, had been recently caught in the Momien district, but I am
disposed to discredit the statement, as the country in the immediate neighbourhood
of Momien appears to be quite unsuited to monkeys, being devoid of trees
and a t an elevation over 5,000 feet. My impression, therefore, is th a t it had
been brought from some neighbouring forest region to the south and from a lower
elevation.
I also procured in the Hotha valley another monkey, even more intimately
affined to the common Indian race than the previous individual, so much so
i To this may perhaps be prefixed Cercopitheeus malatta, Zimmermann, Geograph. Geseh. vol. ii. 1780, p. 1195 ;
Boddaert, Elench. Animal, 1785, p. 61 ; Fischer, Syn. Mam. 1829, p. 29, and which is founded on the tawny monkey of
Pennant, Syn. Mam. 1771, p. 120, Tab. i3, fig. 2, and Shaw, Gen. Zool. vol. i. pt. I (1800), p. 57.
that there seems no doubt that it is ari example of this species. I t had been
also in captivity, but I could gather no information as to the locality whence it
had been obtained.
Besides these two monkeys I am indebted to Dr. Marfels, Conservator of
Forests to the King of Burma, for a Macaque agreeing in every respect with M.
rhesus, from living examples of which in the Zoological Gardens, London, where
it now is, it cannot be distinguished. Dr. Marfels unfortunately could not give me
the locality from whence he obtained it and another of the same species, except
that they had been brought to him by some of his employés who were engaged
in forest work at no great distance from the capital. On my way up the river in
1875, I observed a large troop of monkeys exactly resembling M. rhesus feeding
among the stunted bushes that occur on the high sandy cliffs that overhang the
left bank of the river, below Yenangyoung.
The only wild monkey allied to M. rhesus that is observed in the northern
portion of the country, viz., about Bhamô, is the monkey which I have referred
to M. assamensis, so tha t it appears probable tha t M. rhesus has a distribution to
the south of that of the former. I t is extremely difficult to offer any satisfactory
explanation of the occurrence of these monkeys in the high valleys of Momien
and Hotha. I think it highly improbable that they were taken from Burma,
as in 1868, when I procured these specimens, the country had for years been convulsed
by revolution, and any communication with Burma, except for the necessities
of life, had been for years denied to the unfortunate inhabitants of that high
region.
Both of these first-mentioned monkeys I had alive in my possession in Calcutta
for fully two years, and during that period I more than once compared them
with living examples of the Bengal monkey of their own sex (female) and of
various ages ; the only differences I could detect between them were that they
seemed more slightly built than M. rhesus, that their hair was rather shorter,
softer, and more adpressed and slightly more brilliant in colouring ; also, that the
Momien specimen had a duskier face, and that the area external to and below its
callosities was densely clad, whereas the other animal had it semi-nude, as in M.
rhesus, associated with a somewhat shorter tail. While I regarded the Hotha monkey
as a local race of this species, I was still so dubious about the other as to watch
carefully during the two years of its captivity in the expectation that time might
reveal some determining feature, but none developed itself.
One description, in which I shall compare and contrast the external characters,'
may suffice for both these Yunnanese monkeys, and I shall refer to the
specimen from Hotha as « and to the duskier-faced form as /3. The basal
portion of the hair is greyish brown, so to speak, succeeded by a rich yellowish
area, terminating in a dark brown or blackish tip. This richly rufous, annu-
lated appearance is confined to the upper surface of the animal on its anterior
half, extending on to the fore-limbs of /3, but only down the brachium of «, the
H