680 THE LAST STEPS IN THE GENEALOGY OF MAN. 



Cuvier hesitated to make them quadrumana. For our part we should 

 readily see here an introduction to the Primates, a kind of American 

 lemur, a transition from the insectivora to the monkeys of the New- 

 World. 



Fossil monkeys have been found in America. A most remarkable 

 thing is that all have thirty-six teeth, and agree with the types of that 

 continent, as if the platyrrhine monkeys had always livfd there. The 

 highest among them is the laopithecus, which one should compare 

 with the anthropoids of our continent. 



In short, one is led in America to a special series so constituted by 

 its origin and its termination, viz: many insectivora, arctopitheci, 

 nocturnal monkeys beginning with the saimiris. diurnal monkeys, and 

 tlie laopitheca. Vogt, Schmidt, and Coi)e, have agreed on this insec- 

 tivorous descent. 



The monkeys of the Old World are less arboreal than those of the 

 IsTew World, and are entirely diurnal. Most of them have rump callos- 

 ities and cheek i)ouches. Their teeth are in general less omnivorous 

 than those of man and tend by the canines to the carnivorous type; 

 they are also farther apart. They are divided into the great monkeys, 

 monkeys without tails, or the anthropoids, and monkeys with tails, 

 which are divided into semnopitheci, cercopitheci, and cynocephali. 

 The semnopitheci (from (ts/jivo?, venerable) embrace the entelle, which 

 has received that name because it is sacred in India, and plays a part in 

 Aryan legends. It inhabits India, IndioChina, Borneo, and Java. 

 The colobe of Abyssinia and Guinea, completes the list. The cerco- 

 pitheci include the guenon, which is found only in Africa, the magot, 

 which inhabits Africa and appears even on the Rock of Gibraltar, and 

 the macaque, which has been observed at two points in Asia, — India, 

 and Japan. x\s for the cynocephali, they are the large dog-muzzled 

 monkeys of numerous species which itiha])it almost all of Africa. 



The monkeys of the Old World are related on the one hand to the 

 lemurs, and on the other to the ungulates. 



The first relationship is openly maintained by Hreckel, and by Cope. 

 Hieckel rests entirely on the shape of their placenta, not a Aery con- 

 vincing proof. Mr. Cope depends chiefly on the conformation of the 

 teeth, which is a more solid argument. Huxley does not say that the 

 monkeys descended from the lemurs, but his description leads us in 

 that direction. Yogt rejects that genealogy, as we have seen ; Schmidt 

 does the same. 



The second relationship (that with tiie ungulates) is entertained by 

 Gaudry, and is the consequence of the one which he has established 

 between the lemurs and the ungulates. There we had two genera, the 

 adapis and the aphelotherium, that establish the communication, the 

 point of junction being at the eocene origin of the perissodactyl branch 

 of the ungulates. Here we have as yet but one known genus, the 

 oreopithecus of Gervais, which by its dentition reselnbles the choero- 



