in reference to Mr. Strickland 1 * Observations. 493 



sition, from mere recollection. The following are the diffe- 

 rential characters which Erxleben assigns to his genus Simia. 

 — " Mantis in palmis plantisque; Cauda nulla; " and he com- 

 prehends under it the species S. Satyrus, (including both the 

 orang and chimpanzee, the Pithecus Satyrus and Troglody- 

 tes niger of modem authors), S. longimana, {Hylobates of re- 

 cent naturalists), and S. Sylvanus and Inuus, {Macacus 

 Inuus). To demonstrate Mr. Strickland's error, I shall state 

 this in the form of an equation : let the genus Troglodytes be 

 represented by t, Pithecus by p, Hylobates byh, Macacus by 

 m, and Simia by S. Now according to Erxleben, — 



but Mr. Strickland contends that S=p, and says that Erxle- 

 ben used it in that sense : therefore according to Mr. Strick- 

 land, — 



p=zt+p + h + m, 



which is a manifest absurdity. When therefore Mr. Strick- 

 land says, — "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, " he makes an insinuation, I am sure uninten- 

 tionally, which is as uncourteous as it is unfounded, and which 

 I feel convinced Mr. Strickland was only led into by the care- 

 lessness of depending too much upon a fallacious memory. 

 In the passage here quoted there is moreover a mistatement 

 of my sentiments in a former paper : I never either asserted 

 or thought that Erxleben did not apply the term Simia to the 

 orang outangs ; what I said was that " he did not sanction 

 its application in the sense contended for by Mr. Strickland," 

 (p. 279), or in other words, that he did not confine the term 

 to the orangs, which is a very different thing from what Mr. 

 Strickland has represented. I regret having been forced to 

 notice this subject; I regret still more that Mr. Strickland 

 has not himself corrected a mistatement which I cannot help 

 thinking he was not warranted to make upon the mere strength 

 of memory. To other parts of Mr. Strickland's paper I shall 

 not reply: the controversy between us has been pushed quite 

 far enough, and I see nothing that should induce me to break 

 the resolution expressed at the conclusion of my last paper, 

 to let the subject drop. I willingly give Mr. Strickland the 

 last word, as he had the first, and leave the balance of the 

 argument to those who take an interest in it. If it tend to 

 open the eyes of zoological legislators to their own fallibility, 

 Vol. II.— No. 21. n. s. 3 a 



