APES AND iMONKEYS 



(SIMI^). 



Tropical mammals more or less like man, with complete dentition, opposable thumb and great-toe (Quadrumana), 

 cup-shaped closed bony orbit, two pectoral mamma;, and discoidal placenta. 



THE apes and monkeys must always ha\'e 

 struck men as being exceedingly human- 

 like in their g-eneral form and structure. So 

 much so, that the great medical writer Galen, 

 as was demonstrated by Vesalius, ascribed to 

 the human frame several details ot structure 

 that he could only have observed in dissect- 

 ing the well-known magot or Barbary Ape: 

 Linnaeus, ao-ain, the founder of modern 

 zoology, placed the orang-utang in the same 

 genus with man, distinguishing them merely 

 as species. Modern science, however, renders 

 this error no longer possible. 



There has been more controversy over the 

 question of the relation of man to the Simia; 

 than would have been possible if the dis- 

 putants had limited themselves to purely 

 zooloofical characters, and had not drawn into 

 the discussion the whole sphere of man's 

 intellectual development and capacity for 

 development. If our object were to give a 

 complete account of the whole class of the 

 Mammalia, as that class must be understood 

 in the science of zoology, unquestionably we 

 should have been compelled to include man, 

 who is a mammal, neither more nor less, down 

 to the smallest feature of his internal and 

 external oro-anization. That is a truth that 

 cannot be shaken. But since, even apart 

 from intellectual qualities and their develop- 



ment, the study of man as a part of nature 

 has become the subject ot a comprehensive 

 science. Anthropology, we have had to con- 

 fine ourselves to the other mammals. Here 

 now it is a matter of perfect indifference for 

 our present purpose what relative value one 

 would assign to the specific characters of the 

 bodily structure of man ; for even although 

 one must acknowledge the entire truth of the 

 well-known saying, that there is less difference 

 between man and the anthropoid apes than 

 between these and the lowest of the Simile, 

 yet within these limits various views may be 

 maintained as to the value of the boundary 

 lines between the different groups. 



The likeness of the Simiee to mim is un- 

 disputed, but it is not the same in all members 

 of that group. It grows gradually less from 

 the large anthropoid apes down to the baboons 

 and the Arctopitheci ; and if the members of 

 one group manifest a striking resemblance in 

 the general form of the body, in their bearing 

 and mode of using the limbs, those of the last 

 group approach so near the squirrels and 

 other climbing animals orCarnivora in external 

 appearance, demeanour, and mode ot lite, that 

 it requires a pretty close examination to 

 ascertain the differences between these groups. 



Let us take a closer look at the bodily 

 resemblances and differences, for it is only 



