to me that it is in no way separable from them. The general oolour of this Sunder-
bund monkey is the same, but the hair on the head shows no tendency to the radiate
character whioh occurred in the Irawady female when alive and in the young male
in thé Zoologioal Gardens. But experience of other Macaques, e. g., M. cynomolgus,
in which the distribution of the hair on the vertex is most variable, sometimes
assuming the form of a radiating tuft, whsreas in the generality of specimens it
is directed, as a rule, backwards, would seemingly indicate that muoh reliance
cannot be placed on radiation as a specific character, and, moreover, there can be no
doubt th a t the prepared skins of monkeys not unfrequently exhibit radiation on the
vertex whilst no such charaoter existed in life. This latter remark I make, not
because X am in any doubt regarding the nature of the distribution of the hair
on the Sunderbund monkey, but because we do not know how the ham on the vertex
of M. problematicus was distributed in life, nor what the characters of this part may
have been in the type of M. assamensis when alive, and in J f. pelops.1
I sWIl here summarise the views which have been expressed regarding this
species by other zoologists.
Horsfield relegated M. pelops, Hodgson, to M. assamensis, and Blyth,2 on his
authority, at first adopted a similar course; but, writing in 1865, he states that he had
examined the original specimen of M. assamensis, but could not peroeive th a t it
differed in any respect from the common M. rhesus, “ excepting that the hind part of
the body is not as usual' strongly tinged with bright ferruginous or tawny, being
uniformly coloured with the rest; and my present impression (liable to oorreotion)
is that it is merely an individual variety of the common animal of Lower Bengal.” •
The late Captain Hutton, o n the ground of the supposed diversity of geographical
distribution of M. assamensis and M. pelops, recorded i t as his opinion that they are
totally distinct species. Dr. Jerdon doubtfully regarded the two as identical, and
suggested that the monkey figured by Hodgson in his manuscript unpublished
drawings as M. sikkimensis might also be the same species. Dr. Sclater m 1868, m
referring to M. problematicus, stated that the animal appeared to be M. assamensis,
but he hesitated to pass any decided opinion whether it were M. omops, Hodgson, or
M. pelops, Hodgson, which could only be determined by an accurate examination of
the animal when dead, and comparison of it with Hodgson’s type specimens. I t
seemed, however, to Dr. Sdater to be specifically distinct from the common M. rhesus,
and in’ 1871 he again stated that he thought “ there could be no question that
M'Clelland’s M. assamensis belongs to the rhesus group of Macaques, and that it is
in all probability the same as the so-called M. problematicus." Dr. Gray included
in his catalogue a monkey which he designated M. assamensis, but Dr. Sdater has
shown that this identification was erroneous, and that the animal was M. cynomolgm
i Dr. Gray ragarM tha radiatim of U» birir on tha v .r t a as one of tha leading c t«ætan, of M. p .lo p , bat
TTodnaon makes no mention of and, a f«tare, and ie earefnl to reoord of M. smop., aolh wt.eh he . . y . M . pelop,
S e t a ” and „peat, that it doe. not ore™ in i t , bat Dr. Gray on the g— i ““ “P“ $
to the British Museum by Hodgson as M . omops having its hair radiated, referred it to M. pelops.
’ » tourn As. Son. B e^g, vol. rrriv. 1865, p. 198. Blythb l .ta .t opinio.g B S ’ « .0 P
unlikely to prove identical with M. tibetmus, A. M.-Edwards, Journ. As. Soc. Bengal, xbv. 1875, ex. no. p. 6.
or a nearly allied species from Siam, with the tail longer than the body, whereas in
the rhesus-like Macaques the tail rarely exceeds one-half the length of the trunk,
and when it does, it is only to a very limited extent, as I have never observed a single
instance in which it ever equalled three-quarters the length of the body.
When Dr. Sclater described M. rheso-similis, he considered it to be most nearly
allied to M. rhesus and M. radiatus, and he then stated that Mr. Bly th had suggested
that it might even he a hybrid between these species; but when Dr. Sclater had
read my description of the Sunderbund monkey, he recognised in it the adult
of M. rheso-similis, while Blyth surmised that the Sunderbund form was the long
unknown M. assamensis, M'Clelland, so th a t the views whioh have been here stated
with regard to the affinities of these monkeys is in no way novel ; they have, however,
been arrived at after an independent consideration of the various typical specimens.
To determine with exactitude the essential characters of this Himalo-Burman
race, or sub-speeies of rhesus-like monkey, it will be necessary to have the command
of a much more extensive series of specimens than it has fallen to my lot to examine ;
hut such materials do not exist in any museum th a t I am aware of, and, moreover,
m u s e u m s p e c im e n s of themselves, however extensive, will not settle the questions
relating to the appearance and character of the living animal in its ferine condition.
The evidence, however, which I have adduced would seem to prove that there
is a monkey different from, but closely allied to, M. rhesus extending eastwards
from the Nepal region of the Himalaya through Assam and the north-eastern portion
of Bengal into the upper or hilly portion of the valley of the Irawady, and that this
monkey is probably the Macacus assamensis, M'Clelland.
* M a c a c u s c y n o m o l g u s , Linn.
Le Macaque, Buffon, Hist. Nat. vol. xiv. 1766, p. 190; Daubenton, ibid, p. 194, pi. xx. (animal),
pi. xxiv. (skeleton) ; F. Cuv. Hist. Nat. des Mammif. Fev. 1819, Pis. 30 and 31.
The Philippine Monkey, Pennant, Syn. Mam. 1771, p. 121 ; Hist. Quad. vol. i. 3rd ed. 1793,
p. 218 ; Is. Geoff. St.-Hil. Arch, du Mus. vol. ii. 1843, p. 568, pi. v.
Simia cynomolgus, Lin. Syst. Nat. 12me- éd. vol. i. 1766, p. 88 ; Schreber, Sàugeth. vol. i. 1775,
p. 91, pi. xiii (fig. Buffon) ; Gmelin, Lin. Syst. Nat. 18“®- éd. 1788, p. 81 ; Cuv. Règ. An.
vol. i. 1817, p. 109; Hugues, Storia Nat. delle Scimiæ; Tav. xxvi. 1823-24 (Buffon’s fig.
enlarged) ; Fischer, Syn. Mam. 1829, p. 25.
Cercopithecus cynomolgus, Erxlében, Syst. Règ. Animal, 1777, p. 28 ; Zimm. Geograph. Gesch.
vol. ii. 1780, p. 186 ; Boddaert, Elench. Animal, 1785, p. 58 ; Kuhl. Beitr. zur Zool. 1820, p. 16 ;
Miiller und Schlegel, Verhandl. 1889-44, p. 48 ; Cantor, Journ. As. Soc. vol. xv. 1846, p. 176.
Cynocephalus cynomolgus, Latr. Hist. Nat. de Buffon (Sonnini) vol. xxxvi. 1809, p. 292.
Cercocebus cynomolgus, Geoff. St.-Hil. Ann. du Mus. vol. xix. (1812), p. 99.
Pithecus cynomolgus, Desmarest, Nouv. Diet. d’Hist. Nat. vol. xviii. 1817, p. 828.
Macacus cynomolgus, F. Cuv. Hist. Nat. des Mammif. Fev. 1819, Pis. 80 and 31; Desmarest,
Mamm. 1820, p. 65 ; Nouv. Diet, des Sc. Nat. vol. xxvii. 1823, p. 467 ; Lesson, Man. de Mam.
1827, p. 42 ; Griffith, An. Kingd. vol. v. 1827, p. 17 ; Cuvier, Règ. An. 1829, vol. Î. (nouv. éd.),
p. 95 ; Fischer, Syn. Mam. 1829,. p. 25 ; Is. Geoff. St.-Hil. Zool. du Yoy. de. Bélanger,
1834, p. 56 ; Waterhouse, Cat. Mam. Mus. Zool. Soc. Lond. 1888 (2nd ed.) p. 7 ; Lesson,
K