1 904.] ANTHROPOID APES. 439 



Simiatran Subspecies. 



Pongo pygmceus f form, dimorph. ahelii (Clarke). 

 bicolor, [ form, dimorph. hicolor (1. Geoff.). 



I will now briefly summarise the I'esults arrived at in this 

 paper. I acknowledge, tentatively, 2 species of Gorilla, one with 



3 subspecies ; but eventually, with more material available, I think 

 we shall find only one species, Gorilla gorilla, with 4 or more local 

 subspecies. I have acknowledged 5 species of Chimpanzee, for 

 which 1 employ the generic name Simia, as the oldest name given 

 to a Chimpanzee was Linnaeus's Simia satyrus for the Tschego. 

 I characterise 3 local races of Simia satyrus, 2 of Simia vellerosus, 

 and 5 of Simia jjygmceus, while as jet only one race each of Simia 

 auhryi and Simia koolookamba are known to me. Of Orang-Outans 

 Pongo, I can recognise only one very vaiiable sjoecies, which can 

 b3 divided up into a number of subspecies. I have characterised 



4 such, ea.ch with a dimorphic phase, but our knowledge is so im- 

 perfect that I only wish to accept these 3 Bornean and 1 Sumatran 

 races for the present, until a fi'esh lot of material aiTives. 



Professor Matschie, as a result of his last journey, is preparing 

 a paper describing a much lai'ger numbei- of foi-ms of Orang and 

 Chimpanzee than I have dealt with in this paper, dividing them 

 also into several genera ; but, while fully awake to the possibility 

 of a large number of additional forms existing, I have noticed 

 here only such foi'ius as are known to me at the time of writing. 



In conclusion, I only wish to explain the standpoint I have 

 taken vip in writing this ^^aper. My first contention relates purely 

 to nomenclatui'e. Hithei-to, at least in Great Britain, zoologists 

 have been divided as to the date to take as the starting-point for 

 zoological nomenclature : ornithologists and entomologists taking 

 Linnteus's XII. edition of the ' Systema ISTaturaa' of 1766, while 

 mammalogists take the X. edition of 1758. Also it has been 

 customary for different zoologists to admit or disallow various 

 changes in nomenclature. This variety of opinions has led to 

 much confusion, and I therefore consider, as all writers on 

 mammals of recent years and also the bulk of German and 

 American zoologists, that the only way to obtain a unifoi-m and 

 final nomenclature is to adopt the tenth edition of Linnseus, and 

 adhere absolutely to the strictest law of piiority in nomenclature, 

 however inti'insically absurd or unsuitable a name may be. 



I now come to my other contention. Much discussion has taken 

 and is taking place as to the naming oi" not of local {i.e. geographical) 

 I'aces. The zoologists of the old school maintain that such races 

 should not be named, and any variation of less than specific value 

 should be ignored as regai-ds the nomenclatorial point. The 

 younger generation, however, declare that any distinction, how- 

 ever slight, ought to be signified by a name so long as it has 

 geographical foundation. I am of the latter opinion. I am in 

 favour of this method for many reasons ; one of which is, that by 



