impeded, if the heel rested on the ground. The thumbs, both of the fore and hind hands, have no separate flexor longus in the monkeys, but receive tendons from the flexors of the other fingers. Hence, the thumbs in these animals will generally be bent together with the other fingers; and they are less capable of those actions, in which the motion of the thumb is combined with that of the fore and middle finger, a combination so important in numerous delicate operations. It is rather singular, since persons have been found to contend that man ought to go on all fours, that there should have been others, who undertake to prove that the orang-outang, and the monkey tribe in general, have an organization suited to biped progression. Even BUFFON states that one, which he saw, always went on two feet, and he ascribes the erect attitude to him without any hesitation. No doubt he can sustain this posture for some time, and in the unnatural condition of confirement he may frequently sit : hence, perhaps, we may account for the numerous observations, in which he is said to go erect But the circumstances of structure already explained show clearly that he is not calculated, like man, for that attitude; and we find, in some of the most authentic accounts, that he is said to have gone on all fours. ALLAMAND, who saw a simia satyrus in Holland, gives the following account of its motions and attitudes: "Its usual attitude was sitting, with its thighs and knees raised; it walked nearly in the same posture, its rump being very near the ground. I never saw it perfectly upright, except when it wished to reach something; and even then its knees were always a little on the bend, and it tottered.”+ VOSMAER, who has described the same individual, says, "this animal generally walked on all fours, like the other monkeys; but it could, likewise, walk erect on its hind feet, and, provided with a stick, it would often support itself for a considerable time. However, it never used its feet flat on the ground, as a man would do, but bent backwards in such a manner, that it supported itself on the external edge of its hind feet, with the toes drawn inwards, which denotes a posture for climbing trees." The testimony of CAMPER concerning one which lived for some time in the menagerie of the Stadtholder at Petit Loo, is to the same effect: L'orang vivant couroit à quatre pattes, et lorsqu'il se tenoit debout (ce qu'il fit le plus dans les premiers tems de son arrivée et lorsqu'il jouissoit encore de • See the work above quoted. Buffon, by Wood; v. 10, p. 79. Ibid. p. 84 toute sa vigeur), il tenoit les genoux ployés."* The description of the individual observed by F. CUVIER corroborates these observations: he climbed excellently, but walked as imperfectly. In the latter operation, he rested his closed hands on the ground, and dragged forwards his hind parts. If one hand was held, he could walk on his feet: but then he supported himself by resting the other hand on the ground. The outer edge of the foot alone touched the ground; and the toes were bent. This description will apply in all points to the orang-outang brought from Batavia by Mr. ABEL;‡ and a short observation of his customary attitudes and motions will convince any one that he is not organized for biped progression, nor capable of it, even for a short trial, without a troublesome and painful effort. The bent knees and general attitude of the figure represented by TYSON, show that the chimpansé is not a biped: "Being weak," says the author, "the better to support him I have given him a stick in his right hand."§ Several passages show, that the animal often went on all fours; and thus confirm the representation given by the directors of the Sierra Leone company; who say, in describing a young one, that "at first he crawled on all fours; always walking on the outside of his hands; but, when grown larger, he endeavoured to go erect, supporting himself by a stick, which he carried in his hand." That the gibbon (S. Lar), another of the anthropomorphous simiæ, is not constructed for the erect attitude, appears from the testimony of DAUBENTON. It could go almost erect on the feet, but the legs and thighs were rather bent; and sometimes the hand touched the ground to support the reeling body: it was unsteady whenever it stopped in an upright posture, the heel only resting on the ground, and the sole being raised it remained but a short time in this attitude, which appeared unnatural. No instance has ever been produced of a monkey, nor indeed of any animal, except man, which could support the body in equilibrio on one foot only. The causes of this prerogative of the human organization will be found in the breadth of his foot, in the resting of its entire surface on the ground, in the bony and muscular strength of the lower extremity, and the length of the cervix femoris. * Euvres, t. 1, p. 60. + Annales du Muséum, v. 16, p. 49. ? P. 16, pl. 1. Buffon, by Wood, v. 10, p 80. The foregoing considerations render it very clear that the erect stature is not only a necessary result of the human structure; but also that it is peculiar to man: and that the differences in the form and arrangement of parts, derived from this source only, are abundantly sufficient to distinguish man by a wide interval from all other animals. The assertion of LINNEUS,* " dari simias erecto corpore binis æque ac homo pedibus incedentes, et pedum et manuum ministerio humanam referentes speciem," is not only unsupported by any authentic testimony concerning animals of the monkey tribe, but directly contradicted by all the well-ascertained facts relating to those which most nearly resemble us in stature. CHAPTER IV. Comparison of the Human Head and Teeth to those of Animals. WHEN we consider that the head affords a receptacle for the organ of the mind, that it lodges the principal external senses, as well as the instruments for procuring, receiving, masticating, and swallowing the food, and a considerable part of the apparatus employed in producing sound, we shall not be surprised at the striking differences in its construction, at those proportional developments or contractions of its several parts, which determine the faculties and endowments of different animals, and their relative rank in the scale of nature. The most convenient position for this important assemblage of organsincluding the chief means by which we are connected, actively or passively, with the external world-must exhibit corresponding varieties. A situation is required, combining firinness of support with freedom of motion, a ready communication of the senses with their appropriate external objects, and a corresponding arrangement of the entrances to the respiratory, digestive, and vocal cavities. The mode in which the entire mass is articulated and supported must therefore be varied according to the predominance or contraction of the various particular organs, as well as in conformity to the attıtude of the animal, and the distribution of other parts, particurly the upper limbs. As the proportions of its parts in the human subject indicate a predominance of the organ of thought, and reflection over the instruments employed in external sensation and the supply of merely animal wants, • Fauna Suecica; Præfat which places man at the top of the intellectual scale; so the position of the whole, and the arrangement for its support and motion, are calculated, like all the details of organization hitherto examined, in reference to his peculiar distinction of the erect attitude. A very striking difference between man and all other animals consists in the relative proportions of the cranium and face; which are indicated in a general but not very accurate manner, by the facial line. The organs, which occupy most of the face, are those of vision, smelling, and tasting, together with the instruments of mastication and deglutition. In proportion as these are more developed, the size of the face, compared to that of the cranium, is augmented. On the contrary, when the brain is large, the volume of the cranium is increased in proportion to that of the face. The nature and character of each living being must depend on the relative energy of its animal propensities and functions, its feelings, and mental powers: its leading traits will be derived from those which are most predominant. This is sufficiently evinced in the human species; but the differences observable between one man and another are fewer and less strongly marked than those which occur between animals of different species. The brain being the organ, by which the impressions on the external senses are combined and compared, in which all the processes called intellectual are carried on, we shall find that animals partake in a greater degree, or at least approach more nearly to reason, in proportion as the mass of medullary substance forming their brain exceeds that which constitutes the rest of the nervous system; or, in other words, in proportion as the organ of the mind exceeds those of the senses. Since, then, the proportions of the cranium and face indicate those of the brain and of the principal external senses and instruments of mastication, we shall not be surprised to find that they point out to us. in great measure, the general character of animals, the degree of instinct and docility which they possess:—hence the study of these proportions is of high importance to the naturalist. Man combines by far the largest cranium with the smallest face and animals deviate from these relations in proportion as they increase in stupidity and ferocity. One of the inost simple (though often insufficient) methods of expressing the relative proportion of these parts is by the course of the facial line, and the amount of the facial angle. Sup posing a skull to be observed in profile, in the position which it would have, when the occipital condyles are at rest in the articular hollows of the atlas, in the erect attitude of the body, and neither inclined forwards nor backwards, a line drawn from the greatest projection of the forehead to that of the upper maxillary bone, follows the direction of the face, and is called the facial line; the angle, which this forms with a second line, continued horizontally backwards, is the facial angle, and measures the relative prominence of the jaws and forehead.* In man only is the face placed perpendicularly under the front of the cranium; so that the facial line is perpendicular: hence the angle formed between this line and the horizontal one above described is most open, or approaches most nearly to a right angle, in the human subject. The face of animals is placed in front of the cranium instead of under it: that cavity is so diminished in size, that its anterior expanded portion or forehead is soon lost, as we recede from man. Hence the facial line is oblique, and the facial angle is acute; and it becomes more and more so as we descend in the scale from man: in several birds, most reptiles and fishes, it is lost altogether, as the cranium and face are completely on a level, and form parts of one horizontal line. The idea of stupidity is associated, even by the vulgar, with the elongation of the snout; which necessarily lowers the facial line, or renders it more oblique: hence the crane and snipe have become proverbial. On the contrary, when the facial line is elevated by any cause, which does not increase the capacity of the cranium, as in the elephant and owl, by the cells which separate the two tables, the animal acquires a particular air of intelligence, and gains the credit of qualities which he does not in reality possess. Hence the latter animal has been selected as the emblem of the goddess of wisdom; and the former is distinguished in the Malay language by a name which indicates an opinion that he participates with man in his most distinguishing characteristic, the possession of reason. The invaluable remains of Grecian art show that the ancients were well acquainted with these circumstances. They were aware that an elevated facial line, produced by a great development of the instrument of knowledge and reflection, and a corresponding contraction of the mouth, jaws, tongue, nose, See Camper Kleinere Schriften; t. 1. pt. i. pag. 15. Hist. Nat. de l'Orangoutang; Ch. VII; pl. 1. fig. 3. Dissertation physique sur les Différences réellet que présentent les Traits du Visage, &c. 4to. Utrecht, 1791. The course of the horizontal line, and its point of contact with the facial line, are by no means uniform in all the figures represented by Camper, |