88 
PRIMROSE : THE ANATOMY OF THE ORANG OUTANG 
I have thought, whether it might not be reckoned and called rather 
quadru-manus than quadrupes, i.e., a four-handed, than a four-footed 
animal.” Huxley remarks that if we are to settle the question on the 
grasping power of the organ we must consider the terminal division of 
the hind limb of a bird or an oppossum to be equally a hand with that 
of the monkey. Huxley, however, holds that morphological analogies 
cannot be decided by physiological function, but only by exact com- 
parison of the essential anatomical characters. An attempt has been 
made in this paper to show, with due regard to both structure and 
function, that the ape must be considered as possessing two feet and two 
hands ; that the posterior extremities of the creature terminate in 
structures resembling both anatomically and physiologically the human 
foot rather than the human hand. 
The comparative study of the muscles of the Orang is full of interest, 
and the interest increases when we institute comparisons with the 
arrangement of the musculature in the human body. Fick^ holds that 
in the Orang we have more muscle variation (when we consider the 
literature), than we have in man, and it is interesting to note that in the 
sense of the modern view, we have in the present day Orang, evidence 
of a more active phylogenetic variation than in man. 
By studying muscle variation in man relating to normal conditions in 
lower animals, we may throw light on the position of man in the 
animal kingdom. This conviction was long ago expressed by Professor 
Wood,^ who remarked, concerning the comparative study of the muscu- 
lature of man and the lower animals, that: — “ If in addition to the general 
resemblance of the muscular mechanism, there are to be found in the 
former in man] fragmentary records of special apparatus which have, 
in the latter in lower animals] the fuller development of a definite 
purpose, then these may be taken as at least of equal importance with 
other evidence of traces, some may think, of a general unity of plan with 
varied teleological intentions, and others, of an ancient morphological 
relationship of a much closer character. But if, on the other hand, 
muscles are found which have no place in the various animal types, we 
may fairly take them as indications, valuable as far as they go, of pro- 
gress still advancing towards a higher development of the human frame, 
— of an increase in the distance, already great, which separates 
physically man from animals.” 
1 Loc, cit. 2, p. 306. 
2 Loc. cit., p. 44. 
