SOME OBSERVATIONS ON MONKEYS 



Striking Aflinities Apparent Between Homo and Simia, Both Mentally and 



Morphologically— Although Certain Differences Hold Good in the 



Mean, Abnormal Specimens of Homo May be Found 



Who Show Many Supposed Criterion 



of Simianism 



Dr. R. \V. Shufeldt, C. M. Z. S., W'asliington, D. C. 



A MONG the many interesting books 

 ZA of the late Prof. St. George 

 1 jL Mivart stands the very excellent 

 little volume "Lessons in Ele- 

 mentary Anatomy," which appeared in 

 1877, and which is a most useful trea- 

 tise, carrying many instructive illustra- 

 tions. At the close of this work Pro- 

 fessor ]\Iivart says: "Having now com- 

 pleted our elementary investigation 

 and exposition of the various organs and 

 parts which make up man's body, and 

 having noted the more important difTer- 

 ences which the corresponding structures 

 may present in other vertebrate animals, 

 it may be well, shortly, to recapitulate 

 some of the leading distinctions in a 

 different sequence and arrangement, in 

 order to bring out more clearly not only 

 the peculiarities, but also the affinities 

 evidenced by various anatomical rela- 

 tions between the body of man and those 

 of other vertebrates." 



The results throughout anatomical 

 literature along this line of inquiry and 

 comparison, will stand for the advantage 

 man has reaped, in all ages, from just 

 such investigations, when they have 

 been correctly and intelligently made 

 and employed. Mivart, in the little 

 work above mentioned, first contrasted 

 many of the points in the skeleton of 

 man with what we find in fishes. In a 

 similar manner comparisons were made 

 with the salient points in the anatomy 

 of the batrachians, the re])tiles, the 

 birds, the monotremes, the marsupials, 

 and the mammals; finally, his last 

 table sets forth how man differs from 



all memljcrs of his order, except the 

 three highest genera, the orang {Simia), 

 the gorilla and chimpanzee (Troglodytes), 

 and the gibbon {Hylobates) — that is, 

 with respect to his anatomy. In this 

 he enters more extensively than into 

 the other comparisons he makes; there 

 are thirty-five points recorded in the 

 list, wherein man differs from the highest 

 apes, and five wherein he differs from all 

 members of his order. 



MANY POINTS CONTRADICTED 



These comparisons I have gone care- 

 fully over many times, not infrequently 

 with the actual material at hand. From 

 these ])erupals I am convinced that 

 Mi\'art must have comjjared only such 

 osteological and other characters as 

 occur in the skeleton and general 

 organization of the very highest types 

 of men with such corresponding ones 

 as had been brought to light in the 

 simians during the time he wrote and 

 before — or about half a century ago. 

 As a matter of fact, among the very 

 lowest races of men — and in abnormal 

 specimens — we meet with examples 

 which will contradict nearly every point 

 Mivart attempts to make in the final 

 tabulation referred to above. If we 

 confine ourselves to the skull alone, it 

 will be seen that this is true. I was 

 convinced of this about a year ago, 

 when I carefully examined and com- 

 jmred some 20,000 himian skuUs, of all 

 races, in the collection of the United 

 States National Museum at Washing- 

 ton.^ To refer to a few of these, I mav 



1 This comparison forms the basis of an extensive memoir, with many photographic and line- 

 drawing ilhistrations, which has been accepted for pubUcation by the Medical Department of the 

 Army. 



182 



