POSITION OF ANTHROPOIDS IN THE ZOOLOGICAL SYSTEM.
The racial history of apes can only be traced with any certainty up
to the Miocene period. The fact of the contemporary existence of apes
and pachydermata has been frequently asserted, but it is still too far
from being established to merit further consideration here. Traces of
the slender ape (_Semnopithecus_) have, however, been found in the
Miocene of Greece, Wurtemburg, the mountains of Sewalik, and in the
region bordering on the Himalayas. The name given to one of these
fossil species (_Semnopithecus subhimalayanus_) seems to establish its
locality. The numerous remains of _Mesopithecus Pentelici_ in Attica
have, however, given rise to controversy. Gaudry and Beyrich were
disposed to assign these specimens exclusively to the slender ape, but
Gaudry has since declared that, while the structure of the skull and
teeth is that of _Semnopithecus_, the structure of the limbs is that of
a macaca. He regards, therefore, _Mesopithecus_ as an interesting form
of apes, and this is expressed by its scientific name.[126]
The separation of these two species of apes (_Semnopithecus_
and _Macacus_) must, he considers, have occurred rather late.
_Pliopithecus_, from the fresh-water marl, Sansan, is assigned by
Gaudry and others to the gibbon. Lartet and Quenstedt believe, however,
that it is nearer to the next neighbour on the south, the magot
(_Inuus_), on account of the five fangs of its last tooth. Köllner
thinks the connection with _Semnopithecus_ not improbable.
_Dryopithecus Fontanii_, of which I have already spoken, seems, as
I judge from a cast taken by Fric in Prague, to be of an expressly
anthropoid character; but the scantiness of the materials do not allow
us to form any precise conclusions as to the zoological position of
this extinct animal. The structure of the back teeth, as we have
already said, is certainly anthropoidal. Quenstedt, always cautious
in his judgments, is of opinion that the ape’s teeth found in the
ironstone of the Suabian Alps in the secondary mammal formation,
are of a decidedly anthropoid character, and the animals to which
they belonged must therefore have been of the same type. Fossil
remains of the African stumpy ape (_Colobus_) have also been found at
Steinheim.[127] _Macacus priscus_ of the valley of the Arno seems to
be allied with the African macaca.[128] Owen’s _Macacus pliocenus_
from Essex is closely related to _Macacus sinicus_. Fossil apes have
also been observed in America. _Protopithecus_ was a very large animal,
related to _Mycetes_. Another fossil species, found in South America
(_Laopithecus_), must have been closely related to man. This latter
fact is the more remarkable, since it has generally been assumed, and
indeed with reason, that there is a marked division between the apes of
the Old and New Worlds.
The species now found in tropical America of the silky apes (_Hapale_),
the Sahui (_Jacchus_), the leaping apes (_Callithrix_), the bellowing
apes (_Mycetes_), and the rolling apes (_Cebus_), were already
represented in the diluvial period of that continent. It does not
appear that any extensive generic diffusion of apes has taken place
since that period. It is otherwise with the development of species,
which seems, at any rate to a partial extent, to have occurred late.
This may be inferred from the physical characteristics of gorillas and
chimpanzees, which, with all their differences, have much in common
with each other. In the fourth chapter we have described forms of apes
lying between the gorilla and the chimpanzee, and it seems possible
that these are a reversion to one or the other form. The numerous
varieties of form among anthropoids point to a continuance of the
process of severance in this family of apes, and little more than an
isolating influence is needed to produce the gradual conversion of
varieties into constant species.
On account of their external bodily characteristics, of their
anatomical structure, and their highly developed intelligence,
anthropoids not only stand first among apes, but they take a still
higher place, approximating to the human species. In accordance
with what I have said in the second and third chapters, I set aside
the order of the _Quadrumana_, and accept the Linnæan order of the
_Primates_, both for men and apes. I would include men as _Erecti_ with
anthropoids as _Anthropomorpha_ in a sub-family of the _Primarii_. In
the case of apes (_Simiina_) I should retain the convenient distinction
between those with a narrow and those with a wide nasal aperture
(_Catarrhina_ and _Platyrrhina_). The semi-apes (_Prosimii_) should
constitute a separate order of mammals. The following systematic scheme
shows the classification I suggest:--
I. MAMMALS (_Mammalia_).
A. _Monodelphia_, Blainv. (_Placentalia_, Owen).
I. Order: _Primates_, Linnæus.
1. Family: _Primarii_.
(1) Sub-family: _Erecti_ (_Homo sapiens_).
(2) Sub-family: _Anthropomorpha_, Linnæus.
(_a_) _Dasypoga_, _i.e._ Anthropomorpha, without
the sessor callosities.
(α) Genus: _Troglodytes_, E. Geoffroy.
Species: The gorilla (_Troglodytes Gorilla_, Savage
and Wyman). The chimpanzee (_Tr. niger_,
E. Geoffroy).
The other species are not accurately known.
(β) Genus: _Pithecus_, E. Geoffroy.
Species: Orang-utan (_Pithecus Satyrus_, E. Geoffroy).
(_b_) _Tylopoga_, _i.e._ Anthropomorpha, with
sessor callosities.
(λ) Genus: _Hylobates_, Illig.
Species: see p. 45.
2. Family: Apes proper (_Simiina_).
(1) Sub-family: _Catarrhina_.
Genera: _Semnopithecus_, _Colobus_, _Cercopithecus_,
_Inuus_, _Macacus_, _Cynocephalus_.
(2) Sub-family: _Platyrrhina_.
Genera: _Mycetes_, _Lagothrix Ateles_, _Cebus_, _Pithecia_,
_Nyctipithecus_, _Callithrix_, _Chrysothrix_, _Hapale_.