546 MR. ST. GEORGE MIVART ON THE © [June 27, 
comparison of their immature condition (soon to appear in the So- 
ciety’s Transactions), that little remains to be added to our know- 
ledge on the subject; while the differences between the skulls of 
the highest Apes and those of the lower forms of the order have 
been investigated by Professor Vrolik, M. de Blainville, and other 
writers. 
As regards the bones of the limbs, there is again but little to add 
to the comparisons already instituted between Man and the highest 
Apes in this respect, though perhaps some additional points of inter- 
est may yet result froma further investigation of the details of these. 
structures in the lower groups. 
The spinal column of the Primates has also been more or less 
noticed by Cuvier* and by Meckel+; and the structure of the lower 
Apes, in this respect, compared with that of the higher, by Professor 
Vrolikt and by M. de Blainville§. Also Professor Huxley, in his 
Hunterian Lectures for 1864, has given many further details|| on 
the subject. 
But the most complete and detailed description and comparison 
of the spinal column, as it exists in Man and in the highest Apes, is 
to be found in Professor Owen’s memoir on the skeleton of the 
Gorilla ; and it has appeared to me probable that the results of an 
extension of similar minute observations carried through every family 
of the order, comparing the various forms with each other and with 
Man, may not be without a certain interest as exhibiting the manner 
in which the human vertebral column becomes modified (so to speak) 
into that of the ordinary mammal, as adding a further clue to the~ 
affinities of the different groups composing the order, and, finally, 
as another contribution (however small a one) to a more correct ap- 
preciation of the anatomical and zoological value of the structural 
differences between Man and the highest of the Apes. 
In the following summary of such results, many facts are stated 
which are already well known, or have been previously noticed, but 
the mention of which, nevertheless, could not be omitted. 
Rich as are the collections of the British Museum and the Royal 
College of Surgeons, there are nevertheless several genera of the 
order of which no skeleton exists in either, and others of which there 
is no skeleton wnmounted—deficiencies necessarily rendering the fol- 
lowing account still more imperfect than it would otherwise be. 
As a preliminary, it is necessary to state the arrangement here 
adopted, with respect to the families, subfamilies, and genera of the 
order, though this is not the place to give the characters on which 
this classification reposes. The Primates seem to me to be most 
naturally divisible as follows :— 
* Lecons d’Anat. Comp., 2nd edition, 1836. 
+ Traité Général d’Anat. Comp., traduit de Allemand par MM. Riester et 
Alph. Sanson, 1828. 
¢ Recherches d’Anat. Comp. sur le Chimpansé. Amsterdam, 1841. 
§ Ostéographie—Mammiféres, Primates, Pithecus, Cebus, Lemur. 
|| Reported in the ‘Medical Times’ for 1864. 
{| Trans. Zool. Soe. vol. iv. p. 89, pls. 33, 34, 35, 36. 
