368 
ME. ST. G-EOEGrE MIVAET ON THE SKELETON OE THE PEIMATES. 
4. The fifth metacarpal has sometimes a well-developed process extending backwards 
from the outside of its proximal end. 
5. Generally there is no saddle-shaped surface to support the innermost metacarpal. 
6. Almost always the carpus is directly connected with both the lower long hones of 
the limb. * 
A consideration of all the points above enumerated can, I think, leave little doubt on 
an unprejudiced mind that, as regards the form and relative size of the bones, their 
juxtaposition, connexions, and modes of union, — in other words, as far as osteological 
anatomy goes *, the posterior extremity of Apes much more resembles the foot of Man 
than it does his hand ; while at the same time the manus of Apes differs widely from 
Man’s foot, and closely resembles his hand. 
The prolongation of the controversy, the last word of which, till now, has come from 
Dr. Lucae, is, 1 think, owing to the dispute being one rather about words than about 
material objects; and it is perhaps well further to consider the meanings given to the 
terms “ hand ” and “ foot ” respectively. 
The popular use of the word “foot” shows that its connotation is “support.” We 
speak of the foot of Man, the fore and hind foot of a horse, the foot of a wineglass or 
of a mountain; and in this sense the term is applicable both to the fore and hind 
extremities of most Apes and Lemuroids, which are thus, as they are often called, 
“ Quadrupeds.” If, neglecting common usage, we frame a special definition, then, as 
has been seen, one can readily be devised applicable exclusively to the lower extremities 
of Man. 
As to the word “ hand,” the signification given to it by popular use is vague enough ; 
but precise definitions of the term have been framed by Cuvier, Isidore Geoffroy St. Hi- 
laire, and others ; it remains to see if one has been devised which will justify the applica- 
tion of the term “ quadrumanous ” to all Primates besides Man, and to them exclusively. 
Cuvier’s definition, “ le pouce libre et opposable aux autres doigts , gui sont longs et 
fiexibles ,” which has been accepted by so many, cannot be applied to the anterior 
extremities of Colobus, Ateles, and Hapale, and scarcely, indeed, to any of the Cebidse j\ 
* For an excellent summary of the myological resemblances and differences of the extremities, which lead 
to the same result, see the report of Professor Huxley’s Hunterian Lectures in the 4 Medical Times ’ for 1864, 
vol. i. p. 457. See also the article by Ludwig Fick in Muller’s ‘ Archiv,’ 1857, p. 435. 
f The imperfect opposition of the thumb in 'the Cebidae was first, I believe, pointed out by Don Felix 
d’Azara in his 4 Essais sur l’Histoire Naturelle des Quadrupedes de la Province du Paraguay,’ 1801, vol. ii., 
pp. 213, 233, & 244; also by Geoffroy, 4 Dictionnaire Classique d’Hist Nat.’ t. xv. 1829. Again, and inde- 
pendently, by Mr. Ogilby in the Penny Cyclopaedia, vol. i. p. 442 ; and again by the latter gentleman in a 
paper published in the Proceedings of the Zoological Society for 1836, p. 25. Mr. ~W. Martin notices the 
same point, 4 Nat. Hist, of Man and Monkeys,’ 1840, p. 341. More recently, this incomplete opposability has 
been noticed by Professor Huxley in his 4 Evidence as to Man’s Place in Nature,’ 1863, p. 93 ; and in his 
Hunterian Lectures reported in the 4 Medical Times ’ for 1864, vol. ii. p. 93. The only partial opposition of 
the pollex in Hapale and Cebus is mentioned by Professor Owen, 4 Comp. Anat. of Vertebrates,’ vol. ii. p. 543 ; 
and Trans. Zool. Soe. vol. v. p. 274. Also by Vrollk, Todd’s Cyclop, vol. iv. p. 213. 
