PLATE LVII. 



might possibly be a variety of his Satyrus : he places it as such, var 

 ^ Satyrus Indicus of Tuhpius, at the same time that he suggests 

 a doubt whether it may not be another species : he observes par- 

 ticularly that the abdomen of the latter is ventricose and glabrous, 

 and enquires whether it may not be the other sex of the Rufous 

 Orang-Outang. An Species distincta, quam vide Amoen, Acad, 

 6. p, 69, t, 76. 3. certe ^ abdomine ventricoso glahro differt ; 

 an seocu ? 



This caution of Linnaeus was not superfluous, we are now 

 assured from our better knowledge of the two animals in a living 

 state, as well as from their anatomical conformations, that they are 

 specifically different; and if Gmelin has been in error when he 

 referred the ambiguous synonym of Homo Troglodytes to Simia 

 Satyrus, he was certainly right in separating the Black from the 

 Rufous kind. Linnaeus had previously to this, (in Amoen, 

 Acad.) defined these two animals differently from the descriptions we 

 find in the last edition of his Systema Naturae, for the Rufous 

 Orang-Outang he there denominates Pygmaeus, and adds the specific 

 character which was subsequently given by him to Simia Satyrus ; 

 and under the name of Satyrus he gives in ( Amoen, Acad,) his 

 description of the Black Orang Satyrus /3 ( Satyrus Indicus.) 



It will hence upon the whole appear that much confusion has 

 prevailed among authors respecting these important animals: that 

 Linnaeus was himself in doubt; and that Gmelin and other later 

 Naturalists have been too precipitate in their conclusions. We are 

 now entirely assured that these two animals are perfectly distinct 

 from each other. The animal intended by Bontius is much less 



