QUADRUMANA. AT 
Monkeys, properly so called, 
Or those of the eastern continent, have the same number of grinders as 
Man, but otherwise differing from each other by characters, which have 
formed the grounds of the following subdivisions :—The 
Simi, Hral.—Pituecus, Geoffr. 
The Ourangs* are the only monkeys of the ancient continent which 
have no callus on the buttock; their hyoid bone, liver, and cecum resem- 
ble those of Man. Their nose is not prominent, they have no cheek- 
pouches, nor a vestige of a tail. Some of them have arms long enough 
to reach the ground when standing—their legs, on the contrary, are very 
short. 
S. satyrus, L.; Audeb., pl.2; Fr. Cuv. pl. 2. (The Ourang- 
Outang}.) Of all animals, this Ourang is considered as approach- 
ing most nearly to Man in the form of his head, height of forehead, 
and volume of brain; but the exaggerated description of some au- 
thors respecting this resemblance, are partly to be attributed to the 
cebus and callithrix, by which the antients designated monkeys of Africa and India, 
have been transferred to those of America. The genus Papio, founded solely on the 
shortness of the tail, could not be retained, as it violated natural affinities, and all 
the others required subdividing. It was also necessary to abolish the genus Ouistitis, 
which was comprised in that of the Sagouins, but which does not altogether corres- 
pond with the common characters of the other monkeys. 
* Orang (a) isa Malay word signifying reasonable being, which is applied to man, 
the ourang-outang, and the elephant. Outang means wild, or of the woods; hence 
Wild Man of the Woods. 
+ The only good figure of the Ourang-Outang we had for a long time was that of 
Vosmaer, taken from a living specimen at the Hague. That of Buffon, Suppl. VITI. 
pl. 1, is every way erroneous; that of Allamand (Buff. d’Holl. XV. pl. 11,) is some- 
what better—it was copied in Schreber, pl. 2, B. That of Camper, copied ib., pl. 2, 
C., is tolerably exact, but is easily discovered to have been taken from the dead body. 
Bontius, Med. Ind. 84, gives a completely ideal one, although Linnzus took it for 
the type of his Troglodyte (Amen. Ac. VI, pl. 1,§1). There are some good ones 
in Griffith, and in Krusenstern’s Voyage, pl. 94 and 95, but all of them from young 
subjects. 
{= (a) The species which constitute the sub-genus “Orangs” of Cuvier, are sepa- 
rated into two sub-genera by Geoffroy, who makes the Simia Satyrus the type of his first 
sub-genus, Pithecus; and Simia Troglodytes that of his second sub-genus, Troglo- 
dytes. Besides the distinctions between these two species, described by both Cuvier 
and Geoffroy, there are two others, which may be easily ascertained on an examina- 
tion of the skeletons of both. In the Pithecus, or Simia Satyrus, the ribs are of the 
same number as those of the human body, namely, twelve on each side. But, in 
the Simia Troglodytes, the ribs on each side are thirteen, the extra pair being arti- 
culated with the first lumbar vertebra on each side. Between the sternum (breast- 
bone) of the two apes, a striking difference also prevails. That of the Simia Satyrus 
is much broader in proportion to its length; and the second, third, fourth, and fifth 
bones which compose it, are divided longitudinally into two parallel rows, the sepa- 
rate portions alternating with each other, leaying an indented suture between them, 
which is peculiarly manifest in the young animal. Now, in the Simia Troglodytes, 
the sternum is simply divided, in the ordinary way, into five separate portions which 
are entire; it is altogether much narrower or more compressed laterally than it is in 
the former species. (See several specimens in the Museum of the College of Sur- 
geons, in London.—See, also, specimens in the British Museum).—ENG. Ep. 
