AND AFFINITIES OF THE GORILLA. 273 
applicable to the sole in the act of grasping’: by this ‘‘ syndactylous ” character the toes 
seem to be shorter, but are made stronger for this purpose ; and their length is here 
adverted to as it is manifested by their bones. The result is a limb adapted to functions 
as distinct from those of the Human leg and foot as it is from those of the Bear or Dog. 
If zoology assigns an ordinal value to the limb-characters which distinguish Carnivora 
from Quadrumana, it must, in consistency, assign the same value to the limb-characters 
which distinguish Quadrumana from Bimana. These distinctions are as plain in the 
embryo as in the adult*, and are in no way affected by the anatomical demonstrations of 
the homologies of the bones of the lower or hinder limb: on such ground, indeed, there 
could be no zoology as a classificatory science. 
The Gorilla, by the legitimate application of such science, being relegated to the 
Quadrumanous order in the Gyrencephalous subclass of Mammalia, the question be- 
comes narrowed to its status and affinities in such order. Before, however, entering 
upon this phase, I would premise a few words on the primary groups of the Quadrumana 
of Cuvier. In the second edition of the ‘ Régne Animal,’ 1829, after remarking that 
the order had been divided for a long time into two groups, “‘ les Singes”’ (Simia, Linn.) 
and ‘“‘les Makis” (Lemur, Linn.), he proposes to distinguish the Ouistitis (Hapale, 
Illiger) as a group of equal value. 
Having availed myself of the earliest opportunity to compare the brain of an Ouistiti 
(Hapale midas, Illig., Midas rufimanus, Geoffr.) with that of the Makis, on the one 
hand, and of the Stnges on the other, I found it to agree with the latter in the back- 
ward coextension of the cerebrum with the cerebellum*. In all the Makis (Lemuride) 
about one-half or one-third of the cerebellum is left uncovered. The distinctive cha- 
racters on which Cuvier relied for the separation of the Owistitis were the number of 
the molars, nails only on the hinder thumbs, and those of the fore limbs not meriting the 
name of thumb*. The first of these characters as a mark of affinity to the Old-World 
Simi@ is deceptive: the number of ‘‘ macheliéres ” is, indeed, the same, but their kinds 
* Isidore Geoffroy St.-Hilaire, lamenting “‘ the impediments to zoological science by the deplorable vagueness 
pervading the meaning of the terms applied to characteristic organs,” defines a ‘‘ hand”’ as having long and flexible 
digits opposable to the palm or sole, so as to be able to grasp or seize an object, which, if light and moveable, 
can thus be brought to the mouth; if heavy and fixed, can serve as a fulerum for moving the animal’s body : 
he thus evades the objection based on the inadequacy of the thumb to oppose the fingers, in many Quadrumana. 
(Remarques sur la Classification et les Caractéres des Mammiféres, Premiére Mémoire, Famille des Singes, 
‘ Définition zoologique du mot ‘ Main,’’’ Archives du Muséum d’ Histoire Naturelle, 4to, 1839, p. 17.) 
? See Breschet, “‘ Recherches sur la Gestation des Quadrumanes,’’ Mém. de I’ Académie des Sciences, tome xix. 
1845, pl. 13. fig. 3(Human embryo) and fig. 5 (embryo of Simia sabea), at a period when the digital divisions 
and phalanges begin to be marked by bone, but before there is any trace of ossification in the tarsus. 
* Phil. Trans. vol. exxvii. (1837), pl. v. fig. 2 (copied in the “ Classification of the Mammalia,” Proc. Linn. 
Soc. 1857, fig. 3). 
* « Tls n’ont que vingt macheliéres, comme les Singes de l’ancien continent:” “tous leurs ongles sont com- 
primés et pointus, excepté ceux des pouces de derriére; et leurs pouces de devant s’écartent si peu des autres 
doigts, qu’on ne leur donne qu’en hésitant le nom de quadrumanes”’ (op. cit. p. 105). 
