[ 299 ] 
XIII. On the Appendicular Skeleton of the Primates. By St. George Mivart, F.L.S., 
Lecturer on Comparative Anatomy at St. Marys Hospital. Communicated by 
Professor Huxley, F.B.S. 
Received November 22, 1866, — Read January 10, 1867, 
The interesting question regarding the number and value of the anatomical resem- 
blances and differences existing between Man and the rest of the Primates, has led to 
complete and detailed descriptions and comparisons such as those of Professors Owen *, 
Duvernoy f , and Gratiolet f But the valuable treatises of these authors yet leave 
much to be desired, because they relate only to the highest forms of the Order, and 
some distinctions resulting from such limited comparisons are apt to disappear, and the 
anatomical value of others to decrease when the survey is considerably extended. 
The memoir of Professor Vrolik § gives a somewhat more extended view, and Pro- 
fessor Huxley || has carried his observations and comparisons much further; but for 
the thorough investigation of the skeleton of the limbs of the Primates, nothing 
less than the careful examination of every bone throughout the whole series of forms is 
requisite, while man’s peculiarities can be justly appreciated only after a similarly ex- 
tensive comparison. 
Dr. J. Ch. G. Lucae has recently published an elaborate paper, with careful and 
minute comparisons, on the limbs of Man, Apes, and Marsupials, but he confines him- 
self almost entirely to the terminal segments of the limbs, the manus and the pes 
and besides he does not appear to have had at his disposal a sufficient supply of speci- 
mens, as the very remarkable genera Indris, Loris, Nycticebus, P erodicticus, Arctocebus , 
Tarsius, and CJieiromys are not noticed by him. 
The rich collections of the British Museum and of the Royal College of Surgeons 
have supplied me with abundant materials, and I should be wanting in duty if I omitted 
to express my acknowledgments for the great facilities afforded me, at both those Insti- 
tutions, for studying the skeletons therein preserved. To Mr. W. PI. Plower espe- 
* “ Osteological Contributions to tbe Natural History of tbe Chimpanzees and Orangs,” Trans. Zool. Soc., 
vols. i. to v. ; and “Memoir on the Gorilla,” 1865. f Archives du Museum d’Hist. Nat. Paris, 1855. 
t NouvellesArchivesduMus.,1866,vol.ii. § Rcchcrch.es d’Anat. Comp. sur leChimpanse. Amsterdam, 1841. 
|| ‘ Man’s Place in Nature,’ 1863 ; and ‘ Hunterian Lectures,’ reported in Medical Times, 1864. 
Abhandl. Senckenb. Naturfarsch. Ges., 1865, v. pp. 275 to 332, with four plates. 
** On account of the ambiguity arising from the as yet unsettled connotation of the terms “ hand” and 
“ foot,” I think it better in a -scientific treatise to disuse them altogether, and to follow the example set by 
.Professor Owex (in his memoir on Cheiromys) and by Mr. W. H. Flower (in the labels placed on his recent 
additions to the Museum of the Royal College of Surgeons), by adopting for the anterior extremity (the carpus, 
and all. beyond it) the term manus, and for the homotypal posterior segment the term joes. The all but neces- 
sity for distinct homological terms for such parts is obvious. 
MDCCCLXVII. 2 T 
