Gorillas & Chimpanzees
[Illustration: R. L. Garner.]
Gorillas & Chimpanzees
By
R. L. Garner
_Illustrated_
London
Osgood, McIlvaine & Co.
45 Albemarle Street, W.
1896
_To_
MY FAITHFUL AND GENEROUS FRIEND
MR. ADOLPH STROHM
WHO HAS GIVEN ME
LIBERAL AID AND UNSWERVING ENCOURAGEMENT
AND TO MY KIND AND STEADFAST FRIEND
MR. JAMES A. DEEMIN
WITH WHOM I SHARED SOME OF THE HARDSHIPS OF TRAVEL
AND A FEW OF THE JOYS OF THE HUNT
THIS VOLUME IS
GRATEFULLY DEDICATED BY
ITS AUTHOR
PREFACE
The present work is the natural product of some years devoted to a
study of the speech and habits of monkeys. It has led up to the special
study of the great apes. The matter contained herein is chiefly a
record of the facts tabulated during recent years in that field of
research.
The aim in view is to convey to the casual reader a more correct idea
than now prevails concerning the physical, mental, and social habits of
these apes.
The favourable conditions under which the writer has been placed, in
the study of these animals in the freedom of their native jungle, have
not hitherto been enjoyed by any other student of Nature.
A careful aim to avoid all technical terms and scientific phraseology
has been adhered to, and the subject treated in a simple style. Tedious
details are relieved by an ample supply of anecdotes taken from the
writer's own observations, and most of them are the acts of his own
pets or of apes in a wild state. The author has refrained from rash
deductions and abstruse theories, but has sought to place the animals
here treated in their true light, believing that to dignify the apes is
not to degrade man, but to exalt him even more.
It is hoped that a more perfect knowledge of these animals may bring
man into closer fellowship and deeper sympathy with Nature, and cause
him to realise that all creatures think and feel in some degree,
however small.
THE AUTHOR.
CONTENTS
CHAP. PAGE
PREFACE vii
I. MAN AND APE COMPARED 1
II. CAGED IN AN AFRICAN JUNGLE 14
III. DAILY LIFE AND SCENES IN THE JUNGLE 22
IV. THE CHIMPANZEE 36
V. PHYSICAL, SOCIAL, AND MENTAL QUALITIES 46
VI. THE SPEECH OF CHIMPANZEES 66
VII. THE CAPTURE AND CHARACTER OF MOSES 76
VIII. THE LIFE AND DEATH OF MOSES 92
IX. AARON 102
X. AARON AND ELISHEBA 116
XI. THE DEATH OF AARON AND ELISHEBA 136
XII. OTHER CHIMPANZEES 144
XIII. OTHER KULU-KAMBAS 176
XIV. GORILLAS 188
XV. HABITS OF THE GORILLA 213
XVI. OTHELLO AND OTHER GORILLAS 234
XVII. OTHER APES 252
XVIII. THE TREATMENT OF APES IN CAPTIVITY 262
LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS
_Page_
_Portrait of R. L. Garner_ _Frontispiece_
_Waiting and Watching in the Cage_ _To face_ 16
_Starting for a Stroll_ " 22
_Preparing for the Night_ " 30
_In the Jungle_ " 42
_A Stroll in the Jungle_ " 54
_The Edge of the Jungle_ " 62
_Trading Station in the Interior_ " 102
_Plain and Edge of the Forest_ " 108
_A Native Canoe_ " 118
_Aaron and Elisheba_ " 132
_Native Village at Moile--Interior of Nyanza_ " 146
_Consul II. Riding a Tricycle_ " 164
_Consul II. In Full Dress_ " 170
_Native Village at Glass Gaboon_ " 180
_Natives Skinning a Gorilla_ " 190
_Skulls of Gorillas--Front and Side Views_ 199-202
_Young Gorilla Walking_ _To face_ 208
_Native Carrier Boy_ " 222
_Native Women of the Interior_ " 230
GORILLAS AND CHIMPANZEES
CHAPTER I
MAN AND APE COMPARED
Monkeys have always been a subject of idle interest to old and young;
but they have usually served to amuse the masses more than to instruct
them, until within recent years.
Now that science has brought them within the field of careful research,
and made them an object of serious study, it has invested them with a
certain dignity in the esteem of mankind, and imparted to them a new
aspect among animals.
There is no other creature that so charms and fascinates the beholder
as do these little effigies of the human race. The simple and the wise
are alike impressed with their human look and manner; children and
patriarchs with equal delight watch them with surprise; but now that
the search-light of science is being thrown into every nook and crevice
of nature, human interest in them is multiplied many fold, while the
savants of all civilised lands are struggling with the problem of
their possible relationship to man.
Pursuant to the desire of learning as much as possible about their
natural habits, faculties, and resources, they are being studied from
every available point of view, and every characteristic compared in
detail to the corresponding one in man. Hence, in order to appreciate
more fully the value of the lessons to be drawn from the contents of
this volume, we must know the relative planes in the scale of nature
that man and monkeys occupy, wherefore we shall begin our task by
comparing them in a general way; but as the scope of this work is
restricted mainly to the great apes, the comparison will likewise be
confined to that subject, except in so far as to define the relations
of man and ape to monkeys.
Since monkeys differ among themselves so widely, it is evident that
all of them cannot in the same degree resemble man. And as the degree
of interest in them as a subject of comparative study is approximately
measured by the degree of their likeness to man, it is apparent that
all cannot be regarded as of equal interest. But since each forms an
integral part of the scale of nature, they are of equal importance in
tracing out the continuity of the order to which they belong.
The vast family of simians has perhaps the widest range of types of
any single family of mammals. Beginning with the great apes, which so
closely resemble man in size, form and structure, they descend by
degrees along the scale till they end in the little marmosets, which
are almost on the level of rodents. But the descent is so gradual
that it is difficult to draw a sharp line of demarcation at any point
between the two extremes. There is, however, now an effort being made
to separate this family into smaller groups, but the lines between them
must be dim and wavering, and the literature of the past has a tendency
to retard the effort.
We shall not digress from the trend of our subject, however, at this
time, to discuss the problems with which zoology may have to contend in
the future, but will accept the current system and proceed.
All the varied types that belong to the simian family are, in the
common order of speech, known as _monkeys_, but the term thus used is
so broad in its meaning as to include all the forms of that vast group,
wherefore it is vague and obscure, for some of these resemble man more
than they resemble each other. The name should only be applied to those
having tails and short faces, but there is a small group, which have
no tails at all, that are properly known as _apes_. While they are
all simians, they are not all monkeys. It is with this small group,
without tails, that we propose chiefly to deal. We select them because
of their likeness to man, and having noted the similitude, the result
may be compared with other types of the same order. There are only four
of these apes, but as a whole they resemble man in so many essential
details that they are called "anthropoid," or "man-like apes." They
differ from each other in certain respects, almost as much as any one
of them differs from man. The four apes alluded to, are the chimpanzee,
the gorilla, the orang and the gibbon.
As the skeleton is the framework of the physical structure, it will
serve as the basis upon which to build up the comparison, and as the
chimpanzee is the nearest approach to man, we select him as the highest
type of the simian, and use him as the standard.
The skeleton of the chimpanzee may be said to be exactly the same as
that of man, but the assertion must be qualified by a few facts which
are of minor importance, but since they are facts we cannot ignore them.
The general plan, purpose and principle are the same in each. There is
no part of the one that is not duplicated in the other, and there is no
function discharged by any part of the one that is not discharged by
the like part of the other. The chief point in which they differ is in
the structure of one bone.
Near the base of the spinal column is a certain bone called the
_sacrum_. It is a constituent part of the column, but in its singular
form and structure somewhat differs from the corresponding bone in man.
The general outline of this bone in the plane of the hips is that of an
isosceles triangle. It fits in between the two large bones that spread
out towards the hips, and articulate with the thighbones.
[Illustration: PELVIS OF CHIMPANZEE
A Sacrum.
B Fourth lumbar vertebra.
C Coccyx.
D Ilium or hip-bone.
E Femur or thigh-bone.
]
About half-way from the centre to the edge, along each side, is a
row of four round holes. Across the surface of the bone is a dim
transverse line between each pair of holes, from which it appears that
five smaller sections of the column have anchylosed or grown into each
other to form the _sacrum_, and the holes coincide with the open spaces
between the lateral processes of the other bones of the column above.
In the chimpanzee, this bone has the same general form as in man, but
instead of four holes in each row it has five, connected by transverse
lines in the same way, indicating that six of the segments are united
instead of five; but to compensate for this the ape has one vertebra
less in the section of the column just above it, in that portion called
the _lumbar_. In it man has five, while the ape has but four. But
counting the whole number of bones in the spinal column, and regarding
each segment of the _sacrum_ as a distinct bone, which to all intents
it is, the sum of the bones in each column is exactly the same.
Although this appears to be a fixed and constant character, it cannot
be esteemed as a matter of great importance, since the same thing has
been known to occur in the human skeleton, and the reverse has been
known in some specimens of the apes, but has never been observed in the
chimpanzee. In this respect he appears to be more constant than man so
far as we know at present.
As the greatest strains of the spinal column are laid upon that part in
which the _sacrum_ is located, there is a tendency for these segments
to unite in order to meet the demand, and since there is the least
flexure in that part, the cartilages that lie between them ossify and
become rigid. The erect posture of man allows more room in the loins
for the fifth vertebra to move, and thus it is prevented from uniting
with the segment below it, which is held firmly in place by the two
large bones mentioned, while the crouching habit of the ape presses
that vertebra firmly against the other, confining it between the two
large bones and thus reducing its movement, wherefore the same result
follows as with the other sections below.
Another bone that may be said to differ in structure is that known as
the _sternum_ or breastbone; it is the thin, soft bone to which the
ribs are joined in the front of the body. In the young of both man and
ape it is a mere cartilage which slowly ossifies from the top downward.
The process appears to begin at different centres, the largest nucleus
being at the top. There appear to be five of these centres. The bone
never becomes quite hard in either man or ape, but always remains
somewhat porous, and even in advanced age the outline of the lower part
is not defined by a smooth, sharp line, but is irregular in contour and
merges or blends into the cartilages that hold the ribs in place.
In man, this bone in maturity is usually found in two segments, while
in the ape it varies. In some specimens it is the same as in man, while
in others it is found to be in four or five segments. But the _sternum_
in each is always regarded as one bone, and is developed from one
continuous cartilage. The separate parts are never considered distinct
bones. The reason that it is found in separate sections in the ape is
doubtless due to the stooping habit of the animal, by which the bone is
constantly flexed and alternately straightened. In man this bone varies
to a great extent.
With these trifling exceptions in point of structures alone, the
skeletons of man and ape may be truly said to be exact counterparts
of each other, having the same number of bones, of the same general
type arranged in the same order and articulated in the same manner.
The corresponding bone in each is the same in design and purpose. The
frame of the ape is much more massive in its proportions than that of
man, but while this is true of some kinds of ape the reverse is true of
others. The average height of the adult chimpanzee is about 63 inches.
In man the _sacrum_ is more curved in the plane of the hips than it is
in the ape, while the bones of the digits in man are straighter. The
arms of man are shorter than the legs, while in the ape these features
are reversed.
In the cranial types, it is readily seen that the skull of man is
nearly round and the face is vertical, while the skull of the ape is
elongated and the face receding. These facts deserve more notice than
the mere mention of their being so.
In the whole scheme of nature certain laws obtain in the projection of
skulls. The angle between the plane of the face and the spinal axis is
co-ordinate to the angle between the spinal axis and the perpendicular.
To be more exact, the spine of a snake is in a horizontal line, and the
face occupies a plane of the same kind. At the other end of the scale
is man, whose spine is in a vertical line, and his face occupies a
like plane. Between these two extremes are types which tend in various
degrees, from the lower to the higher form, and just in proportion as
the spinal axis approaches a vertical line from one side, the plane of
the face approaches it from the other.
In accord with this fact it will be observed that the foramen or
hole in the base of the skull through which the spinal cord passes is
adjusted closer and closer to the centre of the base of the skull as
the spine becomes erect. In man, whose spinal column is erect, the
hole is in the centre of the base; in the reptile, whose spine is
horizontal, the hole is at the extreme end of the base. In the ape the
spinal axis is at an angle with the vertical line, and the plane of the
face conforms to a similar one. In keeping with this law it will be
seen in all animals that just in the same degree as the angles widen,
the foramen is removed from the centre of the base towards the occiput.
It may be noted here, however, that the facial angle is never exactly
the same as the spinal angle. The facial plane of the reptile is not
quite horizontal, nor that of man quite vertical, but the ratios of
angularity are constant. Even the habit of rearing modifies to some
extent this character, but it is only the normal pose of the animal
that determines the exact limit of it.
In keeping with these facts it will be observed that as the angle
between the chin and the spine widens, the lower jaws project, and the
chin recedes or flattens, and in a like degree the voice is modified.
The chin of man forms a right angle, but in the reptile it is quite
lost. In the former the vocal powers are superior to that of all other
animals, but as we descend the scale they are reduced in scope and
degraded in quality, until in the lowest reptiles they become a mere
hiss or squeak.
By a careful study of the voices together with the skulls of animals,
it is found that the gnathic index can be relied upon as a vocal index.
The ape has the smallest angle between the spinal axis and the facial
plane, and has the greatest vocal range and purest voice of any other
animal below man. Among the apes the gibbon has the smallest angle, and
he also has the best vocal qualities of any other ape.
The contour of the skull in all parts conforms to the angle of its
projection from the spinal axis. It is depressed and elongated in
proportion as the angle increases: the brain cavity is narrowed in a
like proportion to its length, and the brain, of course, is modified in
the same manner.
The brain of the ape resembles that organ in man as closely as his
skeleton resembles man's. It has the same lobes, convolutions, and
centres. The texture is slightly coarser. The small details are less
intricate and their lines somewhat less distinct. But these also differ
to a certain extent in different men. In man and apes the same nerves
are present and connect the same organs of sensation, volition and
motion. In all essential points they are one.
These leading facts are deemed sufficient to show the physical likeness
of apes to man, and we shall refrain from the minute details that would
only be of interest to the specialist. The purpose is to acquaint the
general reader with the leading facts.
Regarding man purely in the light of an animal, it is evident that
he is, physically, very closely allied to the chimpanzee, and that
both are integral parts of one great scheme of life, designed by the
same author, fashioned after the same model, projected upon the same
plan, and amenable to the same system of vital economy. Viewing him in
the light of his physical nature, so far it is found that he does not
materially differ from other animals in the structure of his skeleton
and certain concomitants.
In the vital organs of the two there is perhaps still greater unity
of structure, and equal unity of function in all essential details.
The difference of structure is only to the extent of making the organ
conform to the general plan of the animal, and the difference of
function is only one of degree. Since the same characters vary quite
as much among men without changing their identity as such, it cannot
be sufficient ground to widen the hiatus between man and ape; in fact,
the physical likeness of the two grows stronger as the comparison is
extended into more minute and scrutinising details. To the casual
observer the general resemblance is apparent, but to the student the
unity becomes evident.
In addition to the facts we have cited, the ape has the same habits
of rest and sleep; lives on the same kind of diet, which is eaten and
assimilated in the same manner as with man; is subject to many of the
same diseases which attack the same organs, and affect them in the same
way as with man; he suffers like pains and dies in the same manner as
man under like conditions.
The scope of this book is intended only to embrace the chimpanzee
and gorilla, but the comparison which we have shown applies in the
name to all four of the anthropoid apes, but must be qualified in a
few instances to make it apply to the others. These apes differ among
themselves in certain respects in form and habits, and we will omit a
detailed comparison of the monkeys as not being relevant to the subject
in hand; but it will not be out of place to mention in a general way
the chief point in which they differ from men and apes.
There is no fixed type that will represent all kinds of monkeys.
Within the limits of their own family they present a great variety of
types, but the one marked difference between them as a unit, and the
ape as another, is, that the spinal column of the monkey is always
extended into a tail, the first vertebra of which is joined to the
base of the _sacrum_, while the ape has no tail, but the spinal column
terminates with a small pointed bone called the coccyx, exactly the
same as in man. The number of bones and the number of ribs in monkeys
differ from those in the ape or in man, and also vary among different
types of monkey.
There are many little shades and grades of difference all along the
line, but the unity of design throughout the whole range of simian life
is such as to show a continuity of plan and purpose in all essential
details of the animal economy. With man and ape the physical structures
are one, so far as they pertain to autonomy: their habits are one, so
far as they pertain to the means of life; their faculties are one, so
far as they pertain to the animal polity, yet they may not be of a
common stock.
The public mind does not seem to have grasped the correct idea of
evolution, and prejudice has blinded, to some extent, the judgment.
The common opinion that man has descended from or is related by
consanguinity to a monkey is silly and absurd. Science has never taught
such folly, nor advanced any theory from which such a conclusion
could be justly deduced. It would be a waste of time for me to offer
to explain the doctrine of evolution to any one who does not already
understand it from the literature of others on this subject. If he
still nurse the idol of the identity of man and monkey, he must be
too obtuse or too perverse to be reclaimed. But no one will deny the
physical resemblance between man and the great apes, and it is this
resemblance we seek to show rather than trace any relationship based
upon theories. It is not a matter that concerns the purpose of this
work, and we shall here dismiss the subject by saying, that things may
be equivalent and yet not identical.