ORANG-OUTANG. 
369 
sions of his animal, I have been unable to compare them with those of 
the Orang-Outang which I have described. His description of the general 
characters of his animal certainly answers to those of the Orang-Outang 
of Borneo ; but the greater number of them belong also to the Simla Tro- 
glodytes of Linnaeus. 
Another animal which resembles in most of its external characters the 
Orang-Outang from Borneo, is the large monkey described by Wurmb, and 
which he called the Pongo or large Orang-Outang. The skeleton of Wurmb’s 
animal is preserved in the Museum of Natural History of Paris, and has 
been described and figured by Geoffroy*, who has endeavoured to prove that 
it belongs rather to a non-descript genus closely allied to the Mandrils. 
Tilesius t has, however, conjectured that it is the same animal as the Orang- 
Outang from the East Indies described by different writers, and that it only 
differs from them in being full grown. In this opinion he has, according to a 
notice contained in one of the late numbers of the Annals of Philosophy, 
been followed by Cuvier, who supposes all the Orang-Outangs that have 
reached Europe to have been the young animals of the species described by 
Wurmb. Tilesius has stated no grounds for his conjecture ; Cuvier’s disser- 
tation, which was read on the 16th of February to the Academy of Sciences, 
is not published. I would, however, with deference remark, that in com- 
paring Camper’s description of the skeleton of the Orang-Outang of Borneo, 
with the description and figure published by Geoffroy, important anatomical 
distinctions may be observed. In Camper’s figure of the skull of his Orang- 
Outang, those dimensions are most expanded which in Geoffroy’s plates are 
the reverse. In Camper’s, the os frontis rises abruptly from the orbits, and 
forms with the ossa parietaEa an ample arch, giving to the upper part of 
the cranium a spherical form. In Geoffroy’s plate, the os frontis slopes sud- 
denly from above the orbits, and the cranium is flattened on the sides. In 
Camper’s the occipital foramen is nearer the centre of the cranium than in 
Geoffroy’s. In Camper’s plate the spine articulates with the head at an 
acute angle, and the first cervical vertebra allows the head no motion 
backwards. In Geoffroy’s plate the spine articulates with the head at 
* Journal de Physique, 4to. vol. iiu p. 400. 
f Manuscript translation of the Appendix to Krusenstern’s Voyage. 
* 3 B 
