322 NATURAL SCIENCE. November. 



Schmidt (195) deals with their diseases in captivity. Of tv^o young 

 animals that I kept in captivity while in Siam, one died of ulcer of the 

 stomach, the other of pneumonia, both lesions being exactly of the 

 type found in corresponding human diseases. The subcutaneous 

 tissue of these two animals contained a large number of thread- worms 

 belonging to several species. 



Classification. — It cannot be said even yet that the question as 

 to the number of orang species is finally settled, but all the evidence 

 at our disposal leads to the conclusion that there is but one species. 

 This has been the opinion of Dutch naturalists all along. The great 

 amount of structural variation — in the shape of the skull, presence or 

 absence of temporal crests, of cheek-pads, or of great toe-nails, in the 

 form of the teeth or colour of the hair, which was by some regarded 

 as indicating a difference of species, is now generally looked upon as 

 due to individual age or sex peculiarities. Brooke (226), Owen 

 (262, 264), Blyth (224), and Wallace (284, 285) distinguished several 

 species, but as pointed out in the section on the cranium, the specific 

 differences were really age characters. Selenka (277), who more than 

 anyone has had the advantage of studying abundance of material as 

 well as the animal in its native haunts, regards the orang as forming 

 one species, but distinguishes six local varieties in Borneo and two in 

 Sumatra. From the characters he assigns to these, however, it may be 

 doubted if these varieties could be distinguished from each other with 

 any certainty. Lucas (253), who studied the material brought home 

 by Hornaday, came to the conclusion there was but one species, 

 and Temminck (280), Schlegel (193), Schlegel and Miiller (273), Milne 

 Edwards (258), Beddard (93), Briihl (227), Dumortier (232, 233), and 

 Lucae (252) were of a similar opinion. Giglioli (31) distinguishes two 

 species of Bornean orang, Fitzinger (236) distinguished four, while 

 Gray (134) gives a full list of the species, with their characters, 

 enumerated in his time. It is generally held that no line of 

 demarcation can be drawn between the orang of Borneo and that of 

 Sumatra, but our knowledge of the Sumatran animal is extremely 

 scanty. I was able to find in London only five skulls of the Sumatran 

 orang, and, working over these very minutely, could find no mark 

 to distinguish them from Bornean skulls. Still, a further study of 

 the anatomy of the whole animal might reveal permanent points of 

 diflference. Our knowledge of the Sumatran orang is due principally 

 to Abel (217), Mobius (259a), Snelleman (279), Schlegel and Miiller 

 (273), and Wenckstern (286), who distinguishes two kinds of Sumatran 

 orangs. 



There is a concurrence of opinion in regarding the orang as much 

 more closely allied to the gorilla and chimpanzee, than to the gibbon 

 on the one hand or to man on the other. Meyer even proposed to 

 place the three in one genus. There has been a great deal written 

 upon the affinities of this genus, principally by Broca (104^), Duvernoy 

 (22), Geoffroy St. Hilaire (239), Owen (264, 175), Huxley (49^), Mivart 

 (6ifl), and Hartmann (138, 43). 



