826 THE POPULAR SCIENCE MONTHLY. 



Huxley, in his last classification — three groups: man, the 

 monkeys, and the lemurs, the monkeys being divided into the 

 catarrhinians, platyrrhinians, and arctopithecans ; and the catar- 

 rhinians subdivided into the anthropomorphous and the cyno- 

 morphous apes. 



Vogt, in his " Mammalia " — first group, man, which we men- 

 tion here, but which is not treated of ; second group, the monkeys 

 of the old continent, divided into anthropomorphous or tailless 

 monkeys, and monkeys with tails ; third group, the monkeys of 

 the new continent, divided into platyrrhinians and arctopithe- 

 coids ; and fourth group, the lemurs or prosimians. 



From this we see that, with the exception of Broca, all these 

 authors agree in uniting the great apes or anthropoids under the 

 term apes, or catarrhinian apes, or apes of the old continent ; and 

 that Huxley and Vogt agree with Cuvier, Broca, too, may not 

 be so isolated as I have represented him. "We should recollect that 

 he never formulated his division as above, but that it is the in- 

 contestable result of his teachings, and especially of those of his 

 later years. 



I have been led by my own studies, and resting on the differ- 

 ences that appear between man and the monkeys, great and small, 

 drawn from the volume of the brain, the cranial characteristics 

 which are the consequences of it, the facial traits that accompany 

 it, and the characters of the skeleton which are developed in a 

 parallel way — that is, from all the characteristics which I have 

 especially studied — to abandon the classification of Linnaeus and 

 take up the one so much decried of Cuvier, against which no se- 

 rious reproach has been brought except that of the use of the 

 word quadrumanous and the narrow definition of the hand on 

 which its rests. Cuvier may not have been much of a philosopher, 

 but he was first among observers. 



When Broca contested the application of the denomination 

 quadrumanous to the monkeys to distinguish them from man, 

 bimanous, he rested on the fact that the presence or absence of 

 the thumb is not enough to authorize the names of hand and foot ; 

 that in man, every superior member concurs in the function of 

 prehension, of which the extremity of the member is the imme- 

 diate organ, while in the inferior member everything is organized 

 with a view to the functions of locomotion and support which the 

 extremity only seems destined to fulfill ; in short, that there is a 

 solidarity between all the parts of either limb, the various details 

 of which constitute the characteristics of the functions of hand 

 and foot. This is admirably true, as to man, at the summit of the 

 evolutionary series of which he is the crowning. It ought to be 

 true, too, when we descend the course of the series. 



The fore-limbs of the monkeys are indeed adapted to the func- 



