598 MR. F. E. BEDDARD OX THE AXATOMY OF [May 26, 



groups), there is a close association between the relative lengths of 

 the regions of the gut and the food, a relation Avhich is by no 

 means ignored by Mitchell, though he does not quote any previous 

 memoii-s in discussing this matter. 



Surely the American monkey Chrysothrix (see above p. 577), 

 with a very short straight intestine, cannot be considered to 

 differ importantly by this character from e. g. Hajxde with the 

 usual tln-ee-sided Primate large intestinal loop. On the contrary, 

 I should be disj)osed to assert that the short colon of the Garni vora, 

 persisting as it does through the whole order, differing as they do 

 widely in their food, is rather evidence of an ancient state of 

 affairs. 



Moreover, a glance at the earliest Mammalia known would seem 

 to suggest that a carnivorous, insectivorous, or at most omnivorous 

 way of life was the primitive mammalian mode of life, a view 

 which is strengthened by reflections upon the origin of the group, 

 whether from Reptilian or Amphibian like foi'ms. Otherwise it 

 might be pointed out that on the whole the simple form of gut 

 was associated with a shortness of gut associated in its turn 

 with a carnivorous habit. The Elephant however (if I rightly 

 interpret the investigations and statements of others) seems to 

 possess a simple gut supported upon a continuous mesentery. 



This, however, is by no means saying the same thing as to 

 assert that the five groups mentioned are to be combined into a 

 superorder and contrasted with the remaining Mammalia which 

 stand in various relations to them. On the contrary, it appears 

 to be totally impossible to classify the mammals by the form of 

 their intestine, the chief reason for this being that so many 

 grades are seen in the same group. On the other hand, it may be 

 confidently said that the Ungulates and Rodents are some way 

 removed from the base of the mammalian series ; for in none of 

 them are primitive conditions to be seen. These have, it would 

 appear, become entirely lost. 



It is particularly noteworthy that the Anthropoidea (under- 

 standing by this term the " apes " and " monkeys "), as contrasted 

 with the Lemuroidea, exhibit primitive characters *, though not so 

 primitive as the five groups with which we commenced this survey. 

 There are no fixed loops to the colon, and there are the same 

 fluctuations in the relative lengths of the small and large intestine 

 that we find in e. g. the Marsupials. But special mesenteric 

 connections render complex the coils of the gut, though not so 

 numerous as we meet with in Rodents. On the other hand, the 

 Lemurs present us with no particular likeness to the other 

 Primates. The path pursued by these animals is really much the 

 same as that pursued by the Rodents and the Ungulates. But 

 this does not in my opinion imjDly afiinity ; it means no more 

 than that there is a definite line of increasing complexity of the 

 gut which is followed in all. 



In fact, on the whole a study of the intestinal coils of Mammalia 



* C!f. however Klaatscli, p. 671, fig. 12 for "lemuniie" stage in young Hajyale. 



