CHIMPANZEE, the name by which one of those forma which approach nearest to man is most generally known. The term has been applied to the Simla Sat yrs.+ of Linnaeus, the Oriental Orang ; but zoologists are now agreed iu its proper application to the Black or African Orang or Pygmy (Troglodytes ntger of Oeofrroy, Simla Troglodytes of Blumenbach). Linn:cue placed the form under the genus Homo, with the specific name Troglodytes, next to Homo sapiens, arranging, as we have seen above, the Asiatic Orang under the Sinihe. But he seems to have confounded the two species of Orange, which differ very considerably; for he refers to the figure given by Bontius, which was intended for the Asiatic. and yet he gives, quoting Pliny, the borders of Ethiopia as its habitat, as well as Java, Amboyna, Termite, and Mount Ophir in Malacca. That the Chimpanzee, though much of its organisation bears a striking resemblance to that of Man, is separated from him by a wide interval, the accurate investigations of modern anatomists sufficiently prove. Tyson, Camper, Blumen bach, Cuvier, Lawrence, and especially Owen, have set that question at rest, though Bory do St. Vincent struggled hard to retain Man and the Orangs as members of the same zoological family. Before we refer to the arguments of the last-named zoologist and his followers, it will be necessary to apprize the reader that, to say nothing of the difference of organisation in other parts of the body and foot, the heel-bone (os cakes) of man does not project backwards so far in proportion as that of the Chimpanzee, and Lawrence notes this as an infallible human characteristic ; ex eater hominem.' Bory de St. Vincent, and those who support the theory of gradual development of animal form, endeavour to show that the position of the great toe, upon which its conversion into an opposeable organ, or thumb, and the consequent transmutation of the foot into a hand, principally depends, is a cha racter subject to modification ; and, after a somewhat sweeping assumption that it is the only difference of organisation between the Orange and Mau, points the whole strength of his argument against its value as a zoological character ; and, by a rather retrograde process of reasoning, endeavours to support his views by giving an instance where man, tinder certain circumstances, obtains a prehensile power of foot. Calling in aid the Resiniera of the Landes of Aquitaine, he exhibits them as having acquired a power of opposing the great toe to the others, a faculty supposed to have been arrived at by their scan sorial habits in obtaining their living by gathering the resin of Pinus maritime. "But," as Professor Owen well observes, "supposing the extent of motion of the great toe to be sufficiently increased by con stant habits of climbing, or in connection with a congenital defect of the upper extremities, yet it does not appear that the os caleis, or the other bones of the foot, have lost any of those proportions which so unerringly distinguish man from the ape." M. Dory, however, in his zealous endeavours to lower the arrogance which makes than unwilling to fraternise with apes and monkeys, is carried so far as to give vent to this naive question :—" En effet, quatre mains ne vaudraient shies pas mieux qua deux comma 616mens de perfectibilit4 /"—" In fact, are not four hands of more value than two as elements of perfecti bility!" Now, let us look at this fallacy, for a fallacy it is. There might be a little, and a very little after ell, in the query, if any one of the four hands of the Quadramona, or all of them put together, approached the hand of man as an instrument of action,—an instru ment whereby, though born the moat helpless of animals and Without clothing or any natural protection, he has made himself master of all, and compelled the apparently most impracticable natural produc tions to minister not only to his wants but to his most luxurious imaginations. Let any one who is at all conversant with animal
mechanics look at the hand of a Chimpanzee, and compare it with his own ; or let any one observe the Chimpanzee using his apology for a thumb, and then cast his eyes on the merest hodnian at his work, and he will soon see where the advantage lies. And this is not all. "To give due force to this proposition," says Professor Owen in his paper ' On the Osteology of the Chimpanzee and Orang-Utan,' " the four hands of the ape ought to be independent of any share in stationary support or progression. Now, it is scarcely necessary to observe that the perfection of the hands of man results, in n great measure, from the free use he is enabled to make of them in consequence of the organisation of the lower members as exclusive instruments for sus taining and moving the body. It has, however, been suggested that the hallux (thumb) of the orang might acquire increased length and strength during the efforts of successive generations to maintain the erect position ; but if we look a little further into the anatomy of the orange, a difficulty ',Temente itself unforeseen by Lamarck and Dory. The muscle called g flexor longue pollicie podia' terminates, In the human subject, in a single tendon, and its force is concentrated on the great toe, the principal point of resistance in raising the body upon the heel. In the omng, however, the analogous 'numbs tenni. slates In three tendons, which are inserted separately and exclusively in the three middle toes, obviously to enable these to grasp with greater The Chimpanzee differs osteologically from the Orang :-1. In having the cranium flatter and broader in proportion to the face. 2. In having the aupmciliary ridges more developed, and in the absence of the interparietal and sagittal crests. 3. In the junction of the temporal with the frontal boues. 4. In the greater proportional breadth of the interorbital space. 5. In the more central position and lees oblique plane of the occipital foramen. 6. In having but one anterior condyloid foramen on each side, while the orang has two. 7. In having generally but one suborbital foramen on each aide, while the orang has three or more. 8. In the persistence of the cranial sutures. 9. In the earlier obliteration of the maxillo-intermaxillary sutures. 10. In the smaller proportional size of the incisive and canine teeth, and consequent smaller development of the jaws, especially of the intermaxillary bones. II, In the smaller proportional size of the cervical vertebra, and larger proportional size of the lumbar ver tebrae. 12. In the additional dorsal vertebra corresponding to the additional pair of ribs. 13. In the more complete composition of the sternum, which consists of a single and not double series of bones, as in the omng. 14. In the greater aigmoid curve of the clavicle, which in the orang is nearly straight. 15. In the less proportional breadth of the scapula, and the more lateral aspect of the glenoid cavity. 16. In the less proportional breadth and greater length of the sacrum. 17. In the leas proportional breadth of the ilium, and greater expansion of the isehium. 18. In the comparative shortness of the upper extremities, more especially of the fore-arm and hand_ 19. In the non-division of the pisiform bone of the wrist. 20. In the greater proportional length of the femur and tibia, and the less proportional length of the foot. 21. In the presence of a ligamentum teres, and consequent depression in the head of the femur. 22. In the greater proportional size of the tarsus as compared with the phalanges of the toes. 23. In having constantly two phalanges in the hallux or great toe with a nail, while the ungueal phalanx and nail are often wanting in the hallux of the orang, especially in that of the female.