328 Remarks on Mr. Ogilby 1 s 



cite, and Gliroidce, or else drop the Greek affix altogether, and 

 make it Simiiformes, Gliriformes. 



I never intended to express that inclusion is the essential 

 idea implied by the termination idee, but only that it neces- 

 sarily results from the close and immediate affinity which is 

 essentially implied by words so terminated. Thus according 

 to the received usage of modern naturalists, the term Corvidce 

 for example, implies a family containing those genera which 

 are closely and immediately allied to Corvus, inclusive. Whe- 

 ther the convenience attending these uniform terminations for 

 families be so great as to justify their universal adoption, is 

 matter of opinion. Mr. Ogilby thinks they should not be u- 

 niversal, — I think they should. Be this as it may, I trust it 

 has been proved that family names in adce and idee, (not oidce), 

 cannot be correctly used to express mere resemblance or re- 

 mote affinity, as in the groups which Mr. Ogilby has termed 

 Simiadce and Gliridce. 



§ 3. — Real signification of the word Simia. — Mr. Ogilby 

 says in p. 279, " that both Linnaeus and Erxleben employed 

 the term Simia in a sense different from its real signification, 

 is very true, but that neither one nor the other of them sanc- 

 tion its application in the sense contended for by Mr. Strick- 

 land is no less so." I will deal with the latter part of this 

 sentence first. I argue that Linnaeus does sanction our mo- 

 dern application of the term Simia to the orangs, by having 

 himself applied it to the group in which the orangs are con- 

 tained. If for instance we are justified in using the term Fal- 

 co or Stria: in a more limited sense than Linnaeus did, we are, 

 by parity of reasoning, justified in treating Simia in the same 

 way. With regard to Erxleben, though I have not his work 

 at hand to refer to, yet I believe I am correct in stating that 

 he does apply the term Simia to the orang outangs, though 

 Mr. Ogilby asserts that he does not sanction its application 

 in that sense. 



Now for the former part of the sentence quoted, viz. that 

 "both Linnaeus and Erxleben employed the term Simia in a 

 sense different from its real signification." The whole ques- 

 tion here is, "what is the real signification of the term Si- 

 mia ? " Mr. Ogilby' s answer would probably be, "the sense 

 in which it was used by the ancients." And pray let me ask, 

 what is the "real signification," in this point of view, of the 

 terms Cebus and Callithrix f Pliny applies them to certain 

 African monkeys, yet Mr. Ogilby is content to use them for 

 American genera ! Is this acting consistently ? Is this pay- 

 ing due regard to classical usage and to the right of priority? 



