THE GUENONS 91 



In general appearance, more especially as regards their slender build and long 

 tails, the guenons are the members of the present subfamily which make the nearest 

 approach to the langurs and their allies. All of them, like the other African 

 monkeys to be subsequently mentioned, are characterized by each individual hair 

 being marked by a series of different-colored rings, which imparts to the fur the 

 peculiar mottled appearance with which we are familiar. 



In disposition these monkeys are docile and easily taught, and so well do they 

 thrive in captivity that it is not uncommon for them to breed in menageries. In 

 consequence of this docile disposition, and their comparatively hardy constitution, 

 as well as from the facility with which they learn tricks, and to obey the word of 

 command, they, or the representatives of the next genus, are generally chosen as 

 companions by the peripatetic organ-grinders. Mischievous as a monkey, is truer 

 of the guenons than of any other members of the order to which they belong; and 

 it is largely to them that the* monkey- house at the Zoological Society's Gardens owes 

 its popularity. 



I^ike the langurs, the guenons are essentially arboreal, and they 

 are found in their native wilds in large troops, which reveal their 

 proximity by their incessant chattering. Not only, therefore, is the solitary 

 monkey of the London organ-grinder to be commiserated for having exchanged 

 the sunny atmosphere of his native African forests for the gloom of an English 

 winter, but likewise for the loss of the merry companions with which he was wont 

 to associate. 



In saying that the guenons are docile, we should guard ourselves by adding, 

 docile for a monkey, since in the strict sense of the word all monkeys are far less 

 docile and less susceptible of education than many other Mammals. This, however, 

 by no means implies that monkeys have not a very high degree of intelligence. 

 In regard to this point we may quote a very suggestive paragraph from Mr. 

 Blanf ord. "It is the commonest mistake, ' ' he writes, ' ' amongst superficial ob- 

 servers, and even amongst naturalists, to confound docility and intelligence among 

 animals, and to measure their intellectual powers by the facility with which they 

 can be taught. Hence the very common, but, as it appears to me, very incorrect 

 notion, that monkeys are of inferior intelligence to such animals as dogs and ele- 

 phants. In reality they are less docile, less willing to learn, and less adapted to 

 captivity ; moreover, being of but little use to man, far less trouble has been taken 

 in studying their habits. Thus while dog and elephant-breaking engage all the 

 time and mental resources of particular classes of men, the instruction of monkeys 

 is left to the unaided efforts of amateurs and organ-grinders. The negro race 

 amongst men appears to be far better adapted for slavery than most savage races, 

 being more docile in a state of captivity ; but it is scarcely proved to be more in- 

 telligent on that account. The same reasoning will doubtless apply to animals. I 

 have often seen dogs and monkeys kept together, and in every instance it has 

 appeared to me that the monkey ruled the dog, and that the dog, although the more 

 powerful animal, feared the monkey ; and I can only account for this by the 

 superior intelligence of the monkey. ' ' 



