PAPIO CTNOCEPHALUS. 
59 
The fact that F, Cuvier had regarded the ‘ Babouin ’ as the baboon which had been 
worshipped by the ancient Egyptians,—an opinion which he did not adopt on the 
authority of Brisson, as stated by Ogilby,—led the last-mentioned author to conclude that 
Cuvier had regarded the baboon as a native of Nubia and the adjacent countries. 
Ogilby, however, notwithstanding his statement that the animal was common in the 
countries bordering upon Upper Egypt, proceeded to argue that as Eiippell, Hemprich, 
and Ehrenberg had not observed it, and as it could scarcely have escaped their 
observation, he was rather inclined to consider it indigenous to Western Africa, He 
therefore thought it probable that the sacred baboon of the ancient Egyptians was the 
C. anubis, F. Cuv., two examples of which had been obtained by Riippell in Abyssinia, 
while others had been observed by Cailliaud at Meroe and Sennaar. A few years later 
Ogilby^ pointed out that the two Abyssinian baboons had been wrongly referred 
by Ruppell to C. habuin^ under which name they had appeared in the ‘ Neue 
AVirbelthiere ’ (p. 7); and although he stated that he was too well acquainted 
with the latter species to have made such a mistake himself, he had afterwards to 
confess that he had committed a similar error, and had confounded Kiippell’s baboons 
with C. anuhis^ F. Cuv. Ogilby had visited the Frankfort Museum in 1837 and had 
seen the two specimens ; but it is quite evident that he had not carried away an 
accurate impression of their essential characters, or if he had done so they had faded 
from his memory; for he believed that in describing the animal he called C. thoth he 
was also describing Kiippell’s two Abyssinian baboons, which was quite erroneous, as 
the baboon he so designated was identical with his C. sphinx and inseparable specifically 
from Papio cynocephalus, Linn. Moreover, I consider that he was perfectly correct in 
his former determination of the Abyssinian baboons, viz., that they were identical with 
P, anubis. 
Ruppell in drawing up his catalogue ^ referred his two specimens to C. anubis, 
F. Cuv,, and on the under surface of the stands on which they are mounted they bear 
this name up to the present day. The baboon which Ogilby thought was specifically 
identical with the two Abyssinian baboons in the Frankfort Museum was living in the 
Gardens of the Zoological Society of London when he wrote. Although he was perfectly 
ignorant wLence this animal was obtained, he speaks of it, in the most unhesitating 
terms, as “ the Abyssinian species,” an unwarrantable assumption as to its native country, 
founded on a fallacy. He believed it to be the same as Riippell’s specimens, and as 
they had unquestionably come from Abyssinia, he assumed that his Cynocephalus thofh 
had also emanated from the same region, when all he knew of it was that it had been 
purchased from off a ship which had come from Bombay. He imagined that the 
baboon had been taken to that seaport by some vessel trading to the Red Sea, whereas 
1 Proc. Zool. Soc. 1843, p. 10. 
2 Mus. Senck. hi. 1845, p. 151. 
I 2 
