DISTRIBUTION IN TIME
There appears as yet to be no evidence of the existence of apes earlier than during the Miocene period. This absence of evidence must by no means be taken as a conclusive proof of their non-existence, since, as Dr. Falconer has pointed out, we ought not to expect to find ape fossils often. We ought not to expect this, because the agility and arboreal life of these animals enable them to escape local inundations, and other causes of destruction and speedy burial, to which more sluggish and terrestrial animals are exposed. When they fall dead they are almost immediately devoured by carnivorous animals and feeders on carrion, and it is owing to this that their remains are so rarely found in India, on which account the Hindoos believe that they bury their dead.
Two teeth found in Suffolk were at first described by Professor Owen as those of apes, under the title Macacus eocoenues. This opinion, however, he has since withdrawn.
A fragment of a right maxilla, from Soleire in Switzerland, was described by Rutimeyer in 1862, under the name Coenopithecus lemuroids. But the recent discovery of fossil lemurs in France renders the ape character of this fragment (which was always doubtful) still more uncertain.
When we enter upon Miocene deposits we find plentiful and unquestionable remains of apes now extinct. In India, in the Sewalik hills, the astragalus of a Semnopithecus (resembling S. entellus) has been found. Also jaws and teeth of other forms allied to Semnopithecus and Macacus have been discovered, one with an upper jaw nearly as large as that of the existing orang. These fossils, however, exhibit no remarkable difference in form from the bones of existing apes.
In Europe a very remarkable ape fossil, named Dryopithecus fontani (Lartet), has been found at Saint Gaudens in France. A lower jaw and humerus were there obtained, but isolated teeth have also been met with in the Suabian Alps. This creature was an ape belonging to the highest sub-family, Simiinoe, and was allied to Hylobates, but of greater bulk than any existing gibbon.
Two other species of ape have been found allied to Hylobates, but of smaller size than dryopithecus, and showing some probable affinity to Semnopithecus. These are Pliopithecus antiquus (Lartet), and P. platyodon (Biedermann). Of the former, two imperfect lower jaws were found in fresh-water deposits at Sansan, nearAuch, in France; while of the latter, an upper jaw has been found in Zurich at Elgg, in the upper fresh-water Molasse there. Another ape (probably of the Simiinoe), of which a lower jaw has been found in the lignite bed at Monte Bamboli in Tuscany, has been named by G.M. Gervais, Oreopithecus bambolii.
M. Gaudry has also found a rich deposit of ape relics at Pikermi in Greece. He has sent thence to Paris parts of as many as twenty --five individuals, while other remains are preserved in Munich, and so less than five crania at Milan. These remains have been by Wagner in a new genus, Mesopithecus. They are very interesting, as showing a somewhat intermediate structure compared with living apes. The cranium and dentition bear affinity to Semnopithecus, but the limbs are rather those of Macacus.
Certain fragments found at eppelsheim (in strata of the same geological age as the Pikermi deposits) have also been attributed to the former genus; while five mandibula, found at Steinheim in Wurtemberg, have received the name, from Fraas, of Semnopithecus grandoevus
Amongst the rich palaeontological treasures which have recently been found in the North American Miocene deposits are certain teeth and fragments, which, it has been suggested, may be those of apes. At present, however, their nature is quite problematical, though the presence of apes at that period in America would be a fact of extreme interest, if sufficient remains could be found to determine whether such apes were Simiadoe or Cebidoe, or forms intermediate between the two.
The Pliocene deposits have not yet yielded much in the way of ape remains. Some teeth from Montpellier (found in fresh-water marl) have been named Semnopithecus Monspessulanus by M. Gervais, while part of a lowerjaw from the same locality has been called Macacus priscus. Other fragments of jaws, and some teeth of Macaci have been found in theVal d'Arno, and are preserved at Pisa, Turin, and Florence. A single tooth from Frays, Essex, has been described by Professor Owen as Macacus pliocoenus.
In America, besides the Miocene fragments before referred to, numerous bones of Mycetes and other genera have been found in the caves of Brazil. These, however, appear to be, geological speaking, quite recent, and they closely resemble the bones of apes now living in that region.
For further details to fossil apes, an article may be referred to (a translation from the Italian) by Major Forsyth, in the Annals and Magazine of Natural History, for the month of September 1872.
GEOGRAPHICAL DISTRIBUTION
The apes are, as far as is yet certainly known, at present almost confined to tropical latitudes. Their most northern limits in the Old World are Gibraltar (Macacus inuus), Moupin, in Thibet (Macacus thibetanus and Semnopithecus roxellanoe), and Japan (Macacus speciosus). In the New World the highest northern latitude certainly known to be attained is 18o or 19o (Ateles melanochir) in Southern Mexico, but they possibly reach even latitude 23o. Father David, however, sees no reason (considering the severity of the climate of Moupin) why apes should not also be found in the mountains of Northern China, and the natives have repeatedly assured him they are to be found there. Southwards, apes are found to near the Cape of Good Hope, and the island of Timor (Macacus cynomolgus), in the Indian Archipelago, in the Old World, and to about 30o in Brazil and Paraguay, in the New World. As to certical extent, a Semnopithecus has been seen near Simlah, at a height at 11,000 feet; Dr. Hooker saw monkeys in the Himalaya at an elevation above 800 feet; and Semnopithecus roxellanoe and Macacus thibetanus were found by Father David inhabiting the Snowy Mountains of Moupin, in Thibet, at an elevation of about 3000 metres, where frost and snow last several months. In Miocene times the ape range was more extensive-namely, to Greece, Tuscany, the South of France,Zurich, Wurtemberg, and even to Essex.
Some of the localities richest in monkeys are islands, such as Ceylon, Borneo, Sumatra, and Jaya; and apes are also found in Trinidad, and the island of Fernando Po. There are, however, certain islands which seem eminently well suited to support an ape population, where apes, nevertheless, are conspicuous by their absence. Such arethe West Indian Islands, Madagascar, and New Guinea; moreover, no ape inhabits tropical Australia. These facts become the more remarkable, if, as Father David suspects, apes exist in Northern China to-day. Evidently it is not climate which prevents their existing in Central Europe, now. The continents of Africa, south of Sahara; of Asia, south of the Himalaya; and of America, from Panama to the southern part of Brazil, are, with the islands before mentioned, the special ape regions of the existing fauna.
There is a remarkable difference between the ape population of the New and the Old World, the latter being inhabited exclusively by Simiadoe, the former as exclusively by the Cebidoe. Europe has but a single ape species; and Asia, north of the Himalaya, has but the few found in Thibet, china, and Japan. Africa, north of the Sahara, is zoologically a part of Europe, and there also Macacus inuus is found, which is the only African species of the genus. African apes are the chimpanzee and gorilla of the west coast, the former extending eastwards to 28o E. long; the Colobi (which are, in fact, but the African form of Semnopithecus), the long-tailed Cercopitheci, including mangabeys (or white-eyelid monkeys); and, lastly, the baboons, Cynocephali. The genus Cynocephalus extends into Arabia' but that, zoologicallyspeaking, is a part of Africa. The Asiatic region possess the orang (Simia) (in Borneo and Sumatra), the long-armed apes (Hylobates), the Semnopitheci, and Macaci.
One form of Macacus, and a very peculiar one (m. niger), found is found in the islands Batchian and Celebes; and it is a noteworthy fact that this, the mostbaboon-like of all the Macaci, should only exist in a region so extremely remote from Africa. The genus Macacus is the most widely spread of any existing genus-namely, from Gibraltar North Africa, in the west, to Batchian, Japan, and the Philippine Islands in the east. In acient times this genus seems to have extended to France, and even to Essex. It is interesting to note that, in the Miocene period, the geographical range of the apes of India was much greater. Gibbon-like monkeys existed in the south of France, while forms intermediate between Semnopithecus and Macacus abounded in Greece.
In America, north of Panama, the genera as yet known to be represented are Chrysothrix, Nyctipithecus, Cebus, Ateles, Mycetes, and Hapale, in Veragua; Nytcipithecus; Cebus, Ateles and Mycetes in Costa Rica and Nicargua; Ateles and Mycetes in Guatemala; and Ateles, in Southern Mexico. Brazil is, of course, the headquarters of the American apes; but different portions of that vast region have a somewhat different ape fauna. Thus the genus Eriodes appears in south-Easterm Brazil to represent the species of Ateles inhabiting the more northern and western parts of the empire. Southwards, the genera Cebus, Mycetes, Chrysothrix, and Callithrix extend furthest; but they do not probably all extend to the furthest limit yet known, namely, 30oS. The species found farthest south are Mycetes caraya, Cebus fatuellus, and Callithrix personatus.
ZOOLOGICAL POSITION AND AFFINITIES OF APES
By universal consent apes are placed in the highest rank of al brutes, and, excepting man, are generally taken to be the most prefect animals of the mammalian class. It may be questioned, however, whether, if the animal man had never existed, this place would be assigned them by any observing intelligence. The half-apes, or lemurs, commonly placed in the same order with them, are certainly inferior mammals; and it might be contended that the perfection of the mammalian type is rather to be found in the Felidoe (or cat family), by reasoning analogous to that by which it might also be contended that birds(with their differentiated limbs, perfect circulating and respiratory systems, acute sense organs, complex, instincts, and teachableness) are really the highest of all vertebrate animals, and represent the vertebrate type of structure carried to the highest degree of perfection yet attained.
The question as to which animals are most nearly allied to apes is one by no means easy to answer. Leaving man aside (whose close anatomical resemblance to apes is to obvious), it is at present extremely difficult to say what are the apes' true zoological affinities. It is to be hoped that future palaeontological researchers may afford us materials for tracing these out; but at present a chasm separates the apes from every other group of animals. The half-apes, or lemurs, were generally considered to lead down from the apes towards the insectivora, and thence to the implacental mammals, but the differences between the apes and lemurs are so many and great, that it cannot be considered otherwise than in the highest degree improbable that (on the evolution hypothesis) they took origin from any common root-form that was not equally the progenitor of other mammalian orders.
But if the apes cannot be considered to show evidence of genetic affinity with any other mammalian order, to they constitute so homogeneous a group as to suggest the former existence of one ancient root-form common to them all? To this question it may be answered that the differences between the Simiadoe and Cebidoe are such as to render it doubtful whether they may not have had respectively quite different origins, and whether their resemblances may not have been superinduced by similarity of neds and conditions. The differences referred to are as to- (1), dentition; (2), nasal septum; (3), tail- the Cebidoe showing a tendency to a curled tail-end, while the Simiadoe never manifest any such tendency; (4), cheek pouches; (5), ischiatic callosities; (6), general form and habit of body; (7), opposability of the thumb; (8), bony meatus auditorius externus. All these characters, taken together, seem to make it probable that the Cebidoe and Simiadoe are not diverging offshoots from some common ape parent,but that they have arisen in an independence as complete as that between the origin of either of them and the origin of the lemuroids or carnivores. Possibly further discoveries in the Miocene deposits of North America will reveal to us transitional forms between the Old and the New World apes, but the existence of such forms cannot certainly as yet be affirmed. It may be asked, however, Can the genera, which possess so many points in common as Cebus and Cercopithecus, have come to resemble each other independently? To this it may be replied, that the number of similarities of structure which must have had an independent origin is so great that it is difficult to see why those of two genera named may not also have had such an origin. As examples of such similarities of independent origin, the following structures may be referred to: - The bony covering of the temporal s fossa in Chelonia, Pelobates, and Lophiomys; the compound tooth structure of Orycteropus and Myliobatis; the coexistence of a certain form of dentition with a salutatory habit inMacropus and Macroscelides; the presence of but eight carpal bones in Troglodytes and Indris; the course of the vertebral artery in Auchenia and Myrmecophaga; the flying membrane in certain squirrels and phalangers; the canines and premolars of Canis and Thylacinus; the grinders of Peromeles and Urotrichus; the external form and habit of body of Mus, Sorex, and Antechinus; and the peculiar dorsal shields in tortoises and certain frogs. But if some naturalists are disposed to admit that the common origin of the Cebidoe and Simiadoe may be very doubtful, can they be even sure of that of Cercopithecus and Hylobates? It has been recently suggested, that the Artiodactyla and the Perissodactyla (the even and the odd-toed ungulates) may be genetically independent (their common characters being merely adaptive, functional ones), as also with the Baloenoidea (whales), and Delphinoidea (dolphins). The response of organization to need being such as it is (structure and function manifesting themselves so simultaneously), the discrimination between genetic and adaptive characters must always be a work of extreme delicacy. In the presence of the various genealogical trees of animal descent which have been so hastily put forward of late, a judicious skepticism seems the attitude best warranted by the evidence yet obtained. If so many similar forms have arisen in mutual independence, then the affinities of the animal kingdom, or even of the mammalian class, can never be represented by the symbol of a tree. Rather, we should conceive the existence of a grove of trees, closely approximated, greatly differing in age and size, with their branches interlaced in a most complex entanglement. The great group of apes is composed of two such branches; but their relations one to another, to the other branches which represent mammalian groups, and to the trunks from which such branches diverse, are problems still awaiting solution.
There can, however, be no doubt that the Simiadoe and Cebidoe together form a most natural group, and are closely allied with man in structure. Moreover, as man is the highest animal, and, zoologically considered, differs less from even the lowest ape than such ape differs from any other animal, man and apes must be placed together in one order, which, may well bear its primitive Linnean name, "Primates." Whether any other animals (and, if any, what) should also be included in this order, are questions for the consideration of which the reader is referred to the heading MAMMALIA.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
AGASSIZ (L). Geographical Distribution. Bull. Soc. Nat., Neufchatel, vol. i. p. 59, 1844; Ibid. 1828, p. 861.
ALIX (E). Papillae of Extremities. Ann. So. Nat. viii. P. 295, and ix. P. 5 pl. 2-5.
ANDERSON. P.Z.S., 1872, p. 203, pl. 12.
ANDETERT (J.B.). Hist. Nat desSinges et des Makis, 1797.
BENNETT (E.T.) P.Z.S., 1831, p. 38; 1833, p. 109. 109. 109. 109.
BEYRICH (H.) Semnopithecus. Abhand. Der Berlin Akad., 1860, pp. 1, 26.
BIRCH (Sam.), Monkeys known to Chinese. Charlesworth's Mag. Nat Hist., 1839, p. 537; and 1840, p. 35.
BISHOFF (Prof. L.W.). Skulls, Sitzgs. Bayer. Ak. Wiss., 1867, pp. 283 and 444; Abh. Bayer Ak Wiss., x. 1870, p. 199, 5 plates (Hylobates); 1871, p. 98 (Brain).
BLAINVILLE. Osteographie. General Pithecus and Cebus, and Geographical Distribution. Ann. Franc. Et Etrang. D'Anat., 1838, vol. ii. p. 358.
BLANDFORD, Observations on Geol. And Zool. Of Abyssinia, pp. 32, 222, and 224.
BLYTH (E.). Jour. As. Soc. Bengal, 1860, vol. xxix. P. 87, and 1865, p. 192.
BRANDT (J.F.). Vocal Organs. Diss. Inaug. Anat.-Phys., Berlin, 1816.
BRESCHET 9Gib.). Generative Organs. Mem. Acad. Sc. Paris, 1845. vol. xix. P. 40.
BROCA (P.). Caudal Vertenrae, rebue d'Anthropolgie, vol. i., L'ordres des Primates (Anatomical Parallel of Man and Apes), Paris, 1870.
BUFFON. Histoire Naturelle, vols. Xvi. Xv., and Supplement, vol. vii.
BURDACH (Ernst). Berichte von der Koniglichen Anatomische Anstalt zu Konigsberg, 1838.
BURMEISTER. La Plata, vol. ii. p. 390; and Cebus, Halle, 1854.
BURT (Dr.) Pr. Roy. Soc. Edin., 1865, vol. c. p. 341.
CAMPER. Natuurkundige Verhandelingen over den Orang-Outang an eenige andere Aapsoorten. Amsterdam, 1732.
CARUS 9C.G.). N. Acta. Acad. C.L., 1861, vol. xxviii.
CHAMPENEYS (F.). Myology. Jour. Anat. And Phys., 1871, p. 176.
CHURCH (W. Selby). Myology. Nat. Hist. Review, 1861, p. 510, and 1862, p. 32.
CRISP (Dr.) P.Z.S., 1865, p. 58
CUVIER (F). Ann. Du Mus., 1807, p. 477; 1810, p. 46; and Mem. Du Mus., 1818, pp. 109,419; Soc. Philom. N. Bull., 1818, p. 29.
DARESTE (C). Brain. L'Institut., 1856, xxiv. No. 1149, p. 17.
DAVID (Rev. Father). Nouv. Archiv. Mus. 1872, vol. vii. Bull. P. 88.
DESMAREST. Mammologie.
D'ORBIGNY. Amerique Meridianale.
DUMORTIER (B.C.). Bull. De l'Acad. R. de Bruxelles, v. No. 11.
DUVERNOY (G.L.). Compt. Rend. 1853, vol. xxxvi. P. 925, and 1853, vol. xxxvi. P. 817; Archiv. Du Mus., 1855-56, vol. viii. P. 1; Mem. Soc. D'Hist. Nat. n.d. Strasbourg, 1835, vol. ii.
EMBLETON (Dr. D.). Chimpanzee. Nat. Hist. Review, 1864, p. 250.
ESCHRICHT. Larynx Muscle of Gibbon. Muller's Archiv. Of Anat. 1834 p. 218.
EUDES-DESLONGCHAMPS. Bull. Soc. Linn. De Normandie, 1860-61 p. 54 tab. 3-8.
FALCONER. Palaeontological Memoirs, vol. I pp. 202 and 296.
FLOWER (W.H.). Brain. Phil. Trans., 1862, p. 185, pl. 2 and 3; Nat. Hist. Review, april 1863, p. 279; P.Z.S. June 1864, p. 337, pl. 29; Anatomy of Pithecia, P.Z.S., Dec. 1862, p. 326, pl. 37; Digestive Organs, Medical Times and Gazette, March 23, April 6 and 20, and May 4, 1872.
FRY (E.0 Osteology of Gibbons. P.Z.S., 1864, p. 11.
GAUDRY (Alb.). Animaux Fossiles et Geologie de l'Attique, 1862.
GEOFFROY ST HILAIRE (Et.). Ann. Du Mus., 1806, p. 260; 1809, p. 89; and 1812, pp. 85, 156; Nouv. Bull. Sc. Soc. Philom. 1813, iii. pp. 218. 265; Comptes Rendus, 1836, vol. ii. pp. 27, 62.
GEOFFROY ST HILAIRE (Isidro). Ferussac Bull. Sc. Nat., 1829, xvii. P. 429' Mem. Du Mus., 1829, p. 121; Mag de Zool., 1832, p. 5. &c.' 1833, pl. 11; and 1850, p. 20; Compt. Rend., 1842, xv. P. 716; 1842, xvi/ 1236; 1843, xvii. P. 1150; 1847, xxiv. P. 576; 1848, xxvii. P. 497; 1850 xxxi. P. 873; 1851, geographical Distribution, xxxiii. P. 361; 1853; xxxvi. P. 933; Archiv. Du Mus., 1844, iv. p. 1; 1852, v. p. 529; 1858- 61, p. 1; Catalogue de la Collection des Mammiferes du Mus. D'Hist. Nat., partie i., Primates, Paris, 1851; Ann. Sc. Nat., 1851, p. 154.
GERVAIS. Hist. Nat. des Mammiferes, and Geologie et Palaeontologie Francaises in Guerin Mag. De Zool., 1836, pl. 18.
GIEBEL. Skull. Zeitschr. Z. Ntrwiss., 1866, p. 401.
GIGLIOLI (E.H.) Chimpanzee Skull. Ann. Del Mus. Civic. Di Geneva, vol. iii Dec. 1872.
GRATIOLET (P.) Memoire sur les Plis Cerebraux, with Atlas, Paris, 1854; Comp. Rend., 1860, i. 50, p. 801; Myology, Soc. Philom. Extr. Proces vert., 1855, p. 68; L'Institut. 23 (1855), p. 331; rev. et. Mag. De Zool., xvi. P. 266; Ann. Of Nat. Hist., 1850, vol. v. p. 54.
GRAY (J.E.). Ann. And Mag. Of Nat. Hist., 1850, vol. v. p. 54; 1861, pp. 136, 274, 349; 1863, p. 398; 1845, pp. 212, 217; Pro. Zool. Soc., 1848, pp. 56 138, 1849, p. 7; 1850, p. 77; 1860, p. 228; 1861, p. 212; 1865, pp. 735, 782, 825; 1866, pp. 168, 202; 1867, p. 992; 1868, pp. 180, 256; Cata;ogue of Monkeys, 1870.
HAMY (E.T.) Brain. Arch. Zool. Experim., 1872, p. 429.
HARLAN (R.) Jour. Acad. Nat. Sc. Philad., 1827, vol. v. p. 229, and Trans. Amer. Phil. soc., 1834, vol. iv. p. 52.
HARTMANN (R.) Reichert and du Bois Raymon's Archiv., Berlin, 1872.
HEER. Urwelt der Schweiz, 1865.s
HEMPRICH (F.W.) Apes of Sennaar, &c., Verhand., Ges. Naturf. Freunde zu Berlin, 1829, vol. i. p. 406.
HEUGLIN, Verhandl. d. L. Caes, Akad., vol. xxx.
HOFFMANSEGG. Apes of Brazil. Mag. D. Ges. Naturf. Freunde zu Berlin, 1807, p. 83.
HUXLEY (T.H.). Man's Place in Nature; Hunterian Lectures, reported in Medical Times for 1864; Manual of the Anatomy of Vertebrates, and Pro. Zool. Soc., 1861, p. 246, pl. 20; Nat. Hist. Review, 1861. p. 67.
HYRT (Prof.). Retia Mirabilia in Ateles. Denkschr. Acad. Wiss. Wien, 1864, xxii. P. 122.
KOLK. (See Schrorder, Van der Kolk.)
KUHL. Beitr. Z. Zool. U. Vergl. Anat., 1820.
LANKESTER (E. Ray). Brain. Quar. Jour. Sci., 1865, p. 562.
LARTET. Comptes Rendus, vol. xliii. 1865, p. 219.
LESSON (R.P.) Species des Mammiferes Bimanes et Quadrumanes, Paris, 1840, and in Revue Zool., 1848, pp. 159, 191, 233, 255.
LEUCKART (F.S.). Ueber die Bildung d. Geschlechhtsorgane, in Zoologische Bruchstucke, Stuttgart, 1841, vol. ii. p. 37.
LEURET. Brain. Comptes Rendus, 1843, vol. xvi. P. 1372.
MACALISTEE (Alex.). Myology. Nat Hist. Soc. Of Dublin, April 1866; Ann. And Mag. of Nat. Hist., 1871, viii. P. 341, and 1872, x p. 62
MARSHALL. Brain. Nat. Hist. Review, vol. I p. 296.
MARTIN (W.) Natural History of Man and Monkeys. Charlesworth's Mag., 1838, vol. ii. p. 320; P.Z.S., 1838, p. 117; 1837, p. 70.
MARTIN ST ANGE (G.J.). Placenta of Hapale. Revue Zool., 1844, p. 73.
MAYER. Verhand. Des Nat. Vereins der P. Rheinlande v. Westphalen, xix. Sitzungberichte, p. 195.
MEYER (H.R.). Funft. Berich d. Offenbach Verein, 1864, p. 68.
MILNE-EDWARDS (Alphonse). Compt Rend., 1870, lxx. P. 341; Nouv. Arch. Mus., Bull. Vi. P. 7, pl. 1; Recherches pour Servir a l'Histoire Nat. des Mammiferes.
MIVART (St George). Pro. Zool. Soc., 1865, p. 43; 1865, p. 545; 1873, p. 506; Trans. Zool. Soc., vol. vi. P. 175; Philosophical Transactions, 1867, p. 299; Man and Apes, 1873.
MONTEIRO. P.Z.S., 1863, p. 238.
MULLER (Sal.). Bijdragen tot de Natuurlyke Histoire van den Orang --Otan in Verhandelingen over de Natuurlyke Geschiedenis der Nederlandsche Overseesche Bezittingen, Leyden, 1840.
MURIE (J.). Pro. Zool. Soc., 1865, p. 744; 1872, pp. 721, 770, 771, 780.
OWEN (R.). Pro. Zool. Soc. 1830, pp. 4, 9, 28, 67; 1832, p. 18; 1833, p. 74; 1841, p. 84; 1848, pp. 27, 53; Trans Zool. Soc., vol. i. pp. 65, 343; ii. p. 165; iii. p. 381; iv. pp. 75, 89, 165; v. pp. 1,243; Comptes Rendus, t. xxi. (Sept. 1845), p. 573; Anatomy of Vertebrates, vol. iii.
PETERS (W.C.H). Reisenach Mossambique, Abhand. Ak. Wiss. Berlin, 1866. p. 79; Monat. Ak. Wiss. Berlin, 1868, p. 637; Ntrf. Freund Berlin, 1872, p. 76.
REINHARDT (J.). Aftryk af Vidensk fra den Natur. Forening I Kjobenhavn, 1872; and P.Z.S., 1872, p. 797.
RENGGER (J.R.) Froriep Notizen, 1830 xxvi. P. 101; and Naturfesch. Der Saug. Von Paraguay, 1830.
ROLLESTON (G.). Brain. Nat. Hist. Review, vol. i. p. 201; and Medical Times and Hazette, February and March, 1862.
RUDOLPHI (C.A.) Ueber d. Embryo d. Affen u. einige andere Saugethiere, Berlin, 1828.
RUTIMEYER. Eocane Saugethiere, p. 38.
SANDIFORTH (G.). Ontleekundige Beschryving van eeen Volwassen Orang Otan in Verhandelingen over de Natuurlyke Geschiedenis der Nederlandsche overseesche Bezittingen, Leyden, 1840.
SAVAGE (Y.S.) On Gorilla, Sillim. Amen. Jour. 1849, vol. viii. P. 141; and Boston J. Nat. Hist. 1847, vol. v. p. 417.
SCHLEGEI., (See Muller.)
SCHMIDT. Zool. Garten, 1861, p. 129.
SCHROEDER, VAN DER KOLK. Brain. Verslagen der Koninkl. Akad. Amsterdam, 1862, xiii.p. 1, tab. 1.
SCLATER (P.L.) Geographical Distribution. Nat. Hist. Review, 1861. p. 507; and P.Z.S., 1872, p. 2; On Species, P.Z.S., 1860, p. 449, pl. 82; 1863; p. 374, pl. 31; 1864; pp. 710, 712; 1866, pp. 79, 305; 1868. pp. 183, 566; 1869, p. 592; 1870, p. 668; 1871, pp. 39, 219, 227, 651; 1872, pp. 663, 798.
SLACK. Pro. Acad. N. Sc. Phil., 1861, pp. 24, 463; 1862 p. 507; 1867, p. 34.
SPIX (J.B.). Simiarum et. Vespertilinum Brazil. Sp. Novae; Denkschr. 1K. Akad. d. Wiss zu Munchen, 1813, Math. Phys. C1., p. 321; Ibid., 1818, p. 607; Fror. Not., vol. vi. (1824), p. 196.
SWINHOE. P.Z.S. , 1862, p. 350, pl. 42; 1866, p. 556; 1870, p. 226.
TEMMINCK, Monographies de Mammologie, Leyden, 1835.
THEILE (F.) Arteries Muller's Archiv. Of Anat. 1852, p. 419.
TIEDEMANN (F.) Icones Cerebi Simiarum et quorandum Animalium rariorum, Heidelberg, vol. ii. 1821; and in Zeitschrift f. die Physiologie, Darmstadt, 1827, vol. ii. p. 17.
TRAILL (T.S.) Observations on the Anatomy of the Orang-Outang, in Mem. Of the Wernerian Nat. Hist. Soc., vol. iii., Edinburgh, 1841.
TRINCHESE (Sal.). Ann. Mus. Cir. Genoa, 1870, p. 1, pl. 1-3 (foetus of Orang).
TSCHUDI (J.J. von). Untersuchungen uber die Fauna Peruana.
TURNER (W.). Brain. Pro. Of R. Soc. Of Edin. 1865-66, v. pp. 243, 578.
TYSON (E.) The Anatomy of a Pigmie, London, 1699
VAN BENEDEN (P.J.). Bull de l'Acad. De Brux., 1838, v. p. 314.
VROLIK (W.) Compt. Rendus, 1850, vol. xxx. P. 83; L'Institut, 1850, xviii. No. 840, p. 43; Techerches d'Anat. Comp. Sur le Chimpanze, Amsterdam, 1841; and article Quadrumana in Todd's Cyclopedia of Anat. And Physiology, vol. iv. o. 194.
WAGNER (J.A.). Skull. Abhandl. Der Math. Phys. Klasse der K. k. Acad. Der Wissen., Munich, 1837, ii. p. 447; Continuation of Schreber's Saugethiere, Supplement, vol. I and v.
Wallace (Alfred). Malay Archipelago, vol. i. chap. iv.; Monkeys of Amazon P.Z.S., 1852, p. 107.
WATERHOUSE (G.R.). P.Z.S., 1838, vi. P. 61.
WEINLAND. Zool. Garten, 1861, p. 166; 1862, p. 201.
WIED (Maximilian, Prince of). Beitr. Z. Naturgeschichte von Brasilien, Weimar, 1826, vol. ii.
WILDER (Burt G.) Myology, Boston Jour. Nat. Hist., vol. vii. 1861.
WYMAN (J.) L'Institut, 1842, x. p. 5; Pro. Boston. Soc. Nat. Hist., 1847. vol. ii. p. 245; 1850. vol. iii. p. 179; 1856, vol. v. p. 274; 1863, p. 203; 1864, p. 356.
(ST. G. M.)
Read the rest of this article:
(1) Ape: Introduction, General
(2) Apes - Anatomy
(3) Apes - Distribution in Time, Geographical Distribution, Zoological Position and Affinities (YOU ARE HERE)
The above article was written by St. George Jackson Mivart, M.D., Ph.D., F.R.S., formerly Lecturer on Zoology at St. Mary's Hospital Medical School, and Professor of the Philosophy of Biology at the University of Louvain; author of Genesis of Species; Man and Apes; and Lessons in Elementary Anatomy.