July 7, 1905.] 



SCIENCE. 



13 



(1904, Vol. II., Pt. IL, 413-440), is based in 

 the main upon recent studies by Professor 

 Matschie, published in the Sitz. Ges. Naturf. 

 Freunde. 



A review of the systematic portion of Mr. 

 Rothschild's paper could not be profitably un- 

 dertaken at present, at least by an American 

 zoologist, for lack of material by which values 

 could be estimated, and still more by reason 

 of the absence from his paper of almost all 

 details in support of its conclusions except 

 a few of dubious significance. The doubt 

 may be expressed, however, whether even the 

 German naturalist, though his material has 

 much exceeded that ever before brought to- 

 gether, has had anything like a sufiicient 

 amount to establish the nature and the taxo- 

 nomic value of many of his characters. One 

 point which maybe briefly noticed is Matschie's 

 proposal, adopted by Rothschild (p. 413), that 

 the gibbons should form a family, Hylobatidae, 

 quite apart from the other anthropoids. It 

 appears to me that nothing could be further 

 from sound principles of classification. By 

 reason of their somewhat intermediate anatom- 

 ical structure, the gibbons might, perhaps, be 

 used to break down the separation of anthro- 

 poids and old-world monkeys into two families, 

 but they are far too closely allied to the first 

 in all distinctive characters, to be added as a 

 third group in the series. 



Reference may also be made here to the 

 biological improbability of four subspecies of 

 orang, each presenting the same dimorphic 

 forms (p. 434). 



The changes in nomenclature, proposed 

 chiefly by Matschie, are so serious in their re- 

 sults that they need examination. It is pro- 

 posed to transfer the generic name 8imia 

 Linn, from its time-worn association with the 

 orang to the chimpanzees, and to apply to the 

 former the name Po7igo Lacep. Now a com- 

 plete reversal in the relation of a generic and 

 specific name a century and a half old, with 

 the upsetting of all depending nomenclature, 

 should be shown to be unavoidable before it is 

 proposed. Is it so here ? The contention is 

 that it results from taking the tenth edition 

 of the ' Systema Naturae ' (1758) as the start- 

 ing point, instead of the twelfth edition 



(1766), for the reason that Simia satyrus of 

 the tenth was based on the Satyrus mdicus of 

 Tulpe (1641), which Mr. R9thschild holds to 

 be so unmistakably a chimpanzee that ' we caili 

 even distinguish the exact race to which it 

 belongs.' 



The whole question, therefore, hangs on the 

 certainty with which this animal can be identi- 

 fied. To me it appears doubtful, as it did to 

 Hartmann, what animal Tulpe really meant. 

 He calls it Satyrus indicus and gives the 

 habitat as ' Africa, Asia.' The ' crinihus 

 nigris ' of his description is the one character 

 to distinguish it from the red orang, but it 

 does not serve to distinguish one species of 

 chimpanzee from another, or more than doubt- 

 fully from a young gorilla. Turning to 

 Tulpe's figure the zoologist of experience with 

 living anthropoids is likely to recognize much 

 more resemblance to the orang than to the 

 chimpanzee in the head, the small ear, the 

 protuberant paunch, the size of the great toe 

 and in the whole attitude of the animal. 



Linnaeus had really never seen any of these 

 apes and his names are based on statements of 

 other authors who were not able to differen- 

 tiate the red ones of the Oriental region from 

 the black ones of the Ethiopian, and his genus 

 Simia of the tenth edition does not rest surely 

 — to quote the American code — upon ' a desig- 

 nated recognizable species * * * or plate or 

 figure.' In the twelfth edition his Simia 

 satyrus is, without question, the orang, the 

 chief reference being to Edwards's plate 213 

 (1758), which being colored leaves no doubt 

 as to which animal is figured. The fact is 

 that Simia Linn, is merely a composite of all 

 the monkeys known to that author, and has 

 with others of his genera been imposed upon 

 literature more by reverence for his name than 

 through any exact application borne by them. 

 This being true in many cases, and Simia 

 satyrus of the tenth edition not being cer- 

 tainly identifiable, rather than overturn the 

 whole, nomenclature of two genera, or even 

 worse to reverse it, it seems quite within 

 legitimate practice to regard it as a nomen 

 nudum as far as the tenth edition is concerned, 

 and let it take date from its first unquestioned 

 use in the twelfth. 



