166 PROFESSOR OWEN ON THE OSTEOLOGY OF 
the belief that the Plates 33 and 34 in that volume were of the skull of a female Orang. 
The small development of the canine teeth, corresponding with that in the skull of 
ascertained sex, figured by Mr. Blyth, outweighed the difference in the depth of the 
alveoli of the lower incisors and canines, which I knew to be a variable character in 
the same sex of the larger species of Orang. 
But prior to the publication of Mr. Blyth’s paper, the original indication of the 
second, smaller, and more Anthropoid species of Orang-utan in Borneo had attracted 
the notice of other able naturalists ; some either tacitly ignored the specific distinction, 
adding the name Pithecus Morio to the synonyms of Pith. Satyrus, or formally com- 
bated my conclusion, as e.g. M. Dumortier, in a paper containing many excellent ob- 
servations on the phases of dentition in the great Orang’. Other observers, as e. g. 
Sir James Brooke’ and Mr. Blyth’, adopted the species, and gave confirmatory evidence 
of the constancy of its distinctive characters from the larger Orangs (Pith. Wurmbii, Pith. 
Abelii, or Pith. Satyrus). Nevertheless, excepting a brief notice by Mr. Blyth of “‘ a nearly 
grown living male of what he considered to be Pithecus Morio, which had no ‘ cheek 
callosities,’ and had not developed its hindmost molares”’ (p. 5), I still remained in 
ignorance of the sex of the first-described specimen of my small species, and felt an 
increasing desire for the means of comparing the skull and dentition of a known adult 
male Pith. Morio with those characters in the adult male Pith. Satyrus. This interesting 
additional evidence has at length been afforded me by the enterprising explorer of the 
less-known parts of Borneo, Mr. A. R. Wallace, who has recorded the chief results of 
his observations on the Orangs in their native wilds in two interesting papers ‘‘ On the 
Orang-utan or Mias of Borneo,” dated Sarawak, Dec. 1855, and printed in the ‘ Annals 
and Magazine of Natural History,’ 1856, p. 471. 
Mr. Wallace’s conclusions are based on the comparison of seventeen freshly-killed 
Orangs, all but one shot by himself, and of two skeletons and two skulls of Orangs, 
“the sex and external characters of which were ascertained from those who killed them ” 
(loc. cit. p. 472). 
Of this most important series for the settlement of the mooted questions of variety 
or specific distinction of the Orangs, sixteen were fully adult, nine being males, and 
seven females; and ‘‘all obtained in a very limited tract of country, watered by the 
same small river, and of very uniform physical features,” in Borneo (p. 472). 
Passing over, for the present, Mr. Wallace’s judicious remarks on the characters of 
the larger Orangs (Mias Pappan or Chappan* and Mias Rambi of the Dyaks), I have the 
satisfaction to quote, with respect to the smaller kind of Orang (Mias Kassar or Kassa of 
* Op. cit. and Comptes Rendus de 1|’Acad. des Sciences, 17th December, 1838. 
* Proceedings of the Zool. Soc. 1841, p. 55. * Journal of the Asiatic Society of Calcutta. 
* Mr. Blyth, in his “ Further remarks on the different species of Orang-utan,” seems not to have been aware 
that these native terms were synonymous, for he writes—‘ One of them (a small but full-grown female) is 
marked by himself M. Pappan; and another is sent by the new name M. Chapin,” &c. 
