With regard to Van der Hoeven’s1 observation that the second upper premolar
and last three molars of N. javcmicus have a talon directed inwards,—in a young
example, the second upper premolar has such a structure well developed, but in an
adult it is worn away to the base; but in both, the two first molars are quadri-
cuspidate, and the fourth tricuspidate, according to the normal pattern, and as it
occurs in N. tardigradus and N. cinereus.
The affinities manifested by this genus towards certain African forms is a
fact full of interest, and is all the more remarkable, because in some respects it
approaches more closely to them than to the Asiatic Loris, L. gracilis. Huxley*
has pointed out that, in its dentition, it approaches Arctocebus, or rather that
the latter differs more from the African Perodicticus than from this genus,
while it also has a certain resemblance to the Loris. Mivart,® too, has insisted on
a kindred affinity between Nycticebus and Perodicticus much more than between it
and Loris.
Measurements of Bham6 specimen:—
Muzzle to vent . • ■ ^
Length of tail . • • , • ............................................................
fore limb from head of humerus to tip of fourth finger . . . 7-20
hind limb from head o f femur to tip of fourth toe . . • 9'00
. Tip o f thumb to tip of fourth finger (expanded)................................................ 2-80
„ great toe to fourth toe „ . . . . . . 3 60
1 Arch. Neerland, III. 1868, p. 95.
TUPAIIDiE.1
While Sir Thomas Stamford Raffles was Lieutenant-Governor of Port Marlborough,
as is well known, he engaged the services of MM. Diard and Duvaucel to
assist in the collection and preservation of his zoological specimens, and to conduct
any anatomical observations which he might wish made on recent subjects: the
whole of these observations and collections were to he the property of the East
India Company. MM. Diard and Duvaucel, however, according to Raffles, before the.
expiry of the first year of their engagement, advanced pretensions so inconsistent with
the letter of their agreement that he had to discontinue his arrangement with them.
From what Raffles states, it appears probable that they had claimed the independent
right of publishing their observations, because he mentions that he had no alternative
left hut to undertake an immediate description of the collection himself, or allow
the results of all his endeavours and exertions to he carried to a foreign country.
Whatever may have been his views regarding their duties before his disagreement
with them, we find him presenting the Asiatic Society of Bengal with a figure and
description of the so-called Sorex-glis drawn up by them. This paper was read before
the Society on the 10th March 1820,2 and as Raffles’ own description was not laid
before the Linnsean Society until the 5th December of that year,8 nor published until
two years later, the credit belongs to MM. Diard and Duvaucel of having first
brought to light this remarkable insectivorous group. To the contribution to the
Asiatic Researches Sir T. Raffles makes no allusion whatever in his communication to
the Linnsean Society. The only explanation of this seeming oversight is to be found
in the introductory remarks to his Descriptive Catalogue of the Zoology of Sumatra
and its neighbourhood.
MM. Diard and Duvaucel regarded the animal they described as a true shrew
disguised in the habits, and, I may add, in the garb, of a squirrel, but that it was
possible that it might be taken as the type of a new sub-division, for which, however,
they did not propose any name beyond the term Sorex-glis. After mentioning that
it was distinguished from the shrews by its teeth and caecum, they still spoke of it as
“ Ce veritable sorex,” and appended the specific term glis to indicate its Sciurine
habit of body. I t is not until we turn to Horsfield’s “ Java” 4 that we find the compound
word Sorex-glis applied to the animal in question. Eor better Latinity and
for the sake of euphony, Desmarest6 proposed the term Gli-sorex, which Giebel6 has
recently altered to Glisosorex. Raffles, however, in his description of two species
1 Dr. Gray has pointed out (Ann. and Mag. Nat. Hist. (I860), VoL V, p. 71,) that there is a figure and a descrip,
tion o f a Tupaia in Ellis’s MS. papers and drawings of the animals observed in Captain Cook’s third voyage, and
which are now deposited in the Zoological Department o f the British Museum.
The Tupaia was apparently first obtained at the Island of Condore (Pulo Condore), which is about one hundred
miles to sea from Saigon, and where Cook was on the 20th January 1780. The animal is described and figured in tw .
collection of drawings as Sciitrus dissimilis, but it would be impossible from the crude nature of the sketch to hazard
a ny opinion regarding the species.
3 Asiatic Researches, Vol. XIV, 1822. 5 Mammologie, p. 536.
3 Linnsean Transactions, 1821, Vol. XIII, p. 239. 6 Odontographie, p. 18.
* Horsfd. Research., Java, 1824