No. 884.

LONDON, SATURDAY, AUGUST 8, 1840. [1839-40.

LECTURES BY M. DE BLAINVILLE ON

COMPARATIVE OSTEOLOGY.

THE

COMPARATIVE OSTEOGRAPHY

OF THE

SKELETON AND DENTAR SYSTEM

IN THE FIVE CLASSES OF

VERTEBRAL ANIMALS,RECENT AND FOSSIL.

BY M. H. M. DUCROTAY DE BLAINVILLE,Member of the Institute of France.

WITH GRAPHIC DELINEATIONS BY M. WERNER ;EDITED (FROM THE FRENCH) AND

ADDITIONALLY ILLUSTRATED

WITH NUMEROUS NOTES, OBSERVATIONS,AND DRAWINGS,

BY ROBERT KNOX, M.D.,Edinburgh ; Corresponding Member of the

French Academy of Medicine, &c. &c.

Os the Antiquity of the Primates on theSurface of the Globe.

AFTER having studied, as we proposed,the skeleton and dentar system of the threegreat genera of Mammals, considered as

Primates, or individuals belonging to non-existing species, and of which we have exa-mined all the component parts, not merelyentire, but also in harmonic connection witheach other, we proceed now to inquire if, inthe bosom of the earth, there may not existfragments of solid parts referrible to animalspecies of one or other of the existing groups,or to species which may fill up and completeany vacuities in the now existing arrange-ment of genera. But previous to such in-quiry, it may contribute to render our workmore generally interesting, and at the sametime show how it may serve as a basis to

zoology, if we examine, first, and in distinctchapters, the too classic history of the Pri-mates, the principles of classification, their

geographical distribution, and, finally, givethe history of their traces discoverable inthe works of authors.

1. History of Zoology as it regards the,Primates.

! Animals, which form the greater part of theorder of Primates, even those which by theircoarse resemblance to man, obtain for themthe very name, appear to have been knownfrom the remotest times. But although theancients seem to have been acquainted with.a considerable number of species of the

Simiae, more especially as a consequence ofthe conquests of Alexander, at least as M.Lichtenstein believes that he has proved in-a dissertation ex professo on this point, thisknowledge was at least very incomplete, and,as a result of their manner of viewing living’beings, showed but little method, or, in otherwords, scientific arrangement.Be this as it may, we find, already, in

Aristotle, the founder of the logic whichleads to a method of acquiring and preservingnew acquirements in knowledge, and whichin consequence leads to rational methods inthe history of Nature; so that, perhaps, thisgreat philosopher is the only one of the an-cients who really merits the name of zoolo-gist : we find, I repeat, the Simiæ alreadydistinguished into Simiæ, properly so called,or Pithecos, into Apes with tails, which hecalls Kebos, a name immediately replacedby that of Cercopithecos, into Cynocephalos,and even into Choiropithecos, or Pig Apes :distinctions established, as is evident, from aconsideration of the tail and the form of

muzzle, and in a system of nomenclature sch

natural and so rational, that they have formedthe basis of everything good and solid thathas been done, from the date of his celebratedHistoria Animalium, that is to say, 2000years ago, to the present day, and has beenfound applicable to new species discoveredin hitherto unexplored parts of the world, in.succession as they appear.Amongst the ancient authors who wrote

from the era of Aristotle to the middle age,that is to say, to the period of the learnedBishop of Ratisbonne, who formed the first

gleam of the restoration of natural science inE’arope, we observe scarcely any progresswhich zoology made, at least in the division

690

of Primates, excepting, perhaps, in the his- Laet, Pierre Martyr, Oviedo, Garsillasso,tory of the Simiæ. Nieremberg, and other writers on America.

Pliny, for example, adopts the four divi- The only scientific innovation which we findsions established by Aristotle, applying, as here, was his reunion of the Apes of theStrabo did, the name of Cercopithecus to the new continent, as he was entitled to do,Simiw with tails ; but we find the new names with the Cercopitheci; and this was followedof Sphinx and Satyres, perhaps originally for a considerable time, and even by compa-drawn from fable, but which he applied to ratively modern zoologists.the Simiae with cheek-pouches, whose cha- 1635. Nieremberg, who, consequently,racter was even more gentle than that of preceded Johnston, seems first, however, toCynocephalus, than even in the Simiæ, pro- have observed the relations of the Makis orperly so called. Lemurs, which he called Simins Zambus,

Ælian cites a still greater number than furnished in such abundance by Madagascar;Pliny, introducing, however, a single new relations which were speedily adopted by theterm, that of Callithrix, indicating merely a first zoologists who had attempted a zoologi.peculiarity in the robe or skin. cal classification and nomenclature.

Solin, although he may have added some 1668. Charleton, whose method is only ageographical peculiarities in respect to copy of that attempted at the commencementspecies pointed out before his day, really of the fifteenth century, made of the Apes, theadded nothing to what Pliny had done. first genus of his class Semiferi, including

Strabo, Oppien, Arrien, Nicephore, or with them pell mell the Carnivora, Insectivorarather Philostorge, ancient authors who and Rodentia, scarcely noticing the species;merely spoke of the animals cursorily, and but amongst his divisions he comprisedsimply characteristic of the countries they the Orang-Outan, which had just beenwished to describe, added nothing to the noticed by Tulpius; and respecting the

previous knowledge respecting the Primates, nature of which animal, he commenced thoseand their writings scarcely enable us to exaggerations which a false philosophy soonguess the species of which they speak, after laid hold of.

Albert the Great, however, who preceded 1693. It appears to me that we owe tothe era of the renewal of letters, perceived Ray the first methodical arrangement of ani-distinctly that the Apes gradually descended mals ; and, although his aim was merely toin a scale from the Pigmy (without doubt facilitate the memory, he merits great praise.the Magot), to that animal which he called The Primates, which we examine at present,Simia, and which certainly was the Papio; include, in the same chapter, not only thebut he pointed out no new species. Simiae and the Sapajous, but also one or two

Shortly, however, after the discovery of animals now generally known as Makis orAmerica, that is to say, at the commencement Lemurs.of the sixteenth century, many new species, With respect to the Simiae, properly soand even particular forms, were discovered called, Ray pointed out very clearly theirand described. division, from the double consideration of the

Thus, Gesner, in his important compila- tail and the muzzle ; and he added to theirtion, reunites under the common title of external characters the internal ones, drawn

Simia, not only the Pithecus, Cebus, Cyno- from the observations of anatomists of the

cephalus, Choeropithecus of Aristotle, and Ancient Academy of Sciences; and he far-the Sphinx, Callithrix, Satyrus, and Cerco- ther applied to each of the sections, namespithecus of Pliny, but also those Apes which have since been considered as generi-described by writers on America under the cal; viz., Simia, Cercopithecus, Cynocepha-name of Sagouins, and which he scientifi- lus, and Papio, corresponding evidently to thecally called Galeopithecus, and even the Cercopitheci of Aristotle.Sloths, whichhe called Arctopithecus. Gesner, 1735-48. Linnaeus, like Kleininhiscritiqueby the invention of these names, and by the on the " Systema Naturae," in 1743, profitedreunion of the Simiae of the new world, and but little by Ray’s improvements in the threeeven of the Sloth with those of the old world, first editions of the " Systema Naturæ," inshowed, that notwithstanding the alphabeti- which the Simias reunited with man and thecal arrangement of his work, he perfectly Sloth under the name of Anthropomorpha,understood Aristotle and his nomenclature. are, nevertheless, arranged in a determinateBut this cannot be said so distinctly of order, according to the length or absence of

Aldrovandi, or rather of Ambrosini, who ar- the tail, and the presence or absence of aranged and published, in 1645, Aldrovandi’s beard.notes. In his work we find nothing new, 1752. Passing over Hill in 1752, who didand but little scientific. nothing, we arrive at the epoch of Brisson,

1657. Johnston, whose abridgment was 1756, who separated the Makis into a dis-

justly considered as a classical work, and tinct sub-order, to which he gave the well-con-almost a manual when compared with those trived name of Prosimii, by attending rigor-of Gesner, augmented remarkably the histo- ously to the number of incisive teeth; butrical part of the facts, by collecting all which Brisson added but little to the four divisionshad been published by Pison, Margrave, De previously established by Ray; to those now

691

called Macaques, he gave the name of Crico-cynocephali.

1766. Linnæus, in his fourth edition ofthe " Systema Naturæ," adopted the era-roneous views of Brisson, but he substitutedthe term Lemur for Propithecus ; and he nowused the term Primates, including Bats andSloths.

1767. The Natural History of Apes," andtheir systematic distribution, made greatprogress in the hands of Buffon, and hisexcellent colleague Daubenton: they intro-duced the new consideration of the arrange-ment of the nostrils as being near or distant ;and this gave rise to the famous distinctioninto Apes of the old and new continents :

they introduced,also, into notice, the existenceor want of the ischiatic callosities and cheek ipouches ; so that they distinguished the ISimia;, the Baboons, and the Guenonsamongst those Apes with close nostrils, andthe Sapajous and Sagouins amongst theSimiæ with nostrils wide apart, by unitingthe ancient consideration in respect to thelength or absence of the tail; and in that caseprehensile, or non-prehensile, to that drawnfrom the form of muzzle.These great naturalists had studied with

equal care the Makis : and from a considera-tion of their teeth and limbs, had alreadysubdivided them into Makis, properly socalled, and into Tarsiers and Loris.

1771. The labours of Buffon and of Dauben-ton on the Primates, serve at first as a guide,to a certain number of zoologists, to Pennant,for example, who published some years after-wards his 11 Systema Quadrupedum;" but ifhe put the Kainkajou in its wrong place, hewas more happy in respect to the Galeopi-thecus.1777. Erxleben was the first zoologist

who, abandoning the Linnaean system, fol-lowed Buffon entirely in his views of thePrimates ; but he formed genera to which hegave the Latin names of Simia, Papio, Cer-copithecus, Cebus, Callithrix, and Lemur ;the divisions to which Buffon had given onlyFrench names ; and in this nomenclature theterm Cebus, used by the ancients to anAfricanApe, was by him employed to designate theSapajous, which, being exclusively Ameri-can, were certainly unknown to them.

1778. Perhaps on this account Blumen-bach was induced to give the name of Cer-copithecus to the American Apes, reservingthat of Simia for those of the old continent ;but in other respects following Buffon, as ap-proved or alteredby Erxleben, still impressedwith the views of Linnaeus.

17SO. Storr, in his great reform ofmammalogy, he being the first to apply thenatural method to the history of animals, solong sought for in phytology, formed of thePrimates the second section of his Manati,giving to them the compound term of Palmi-plantares; and placing in the section the

genera Simia, Prosimia, Procebus, Tarsius,

and Lemur, for the Galeopitheci ; an innova-tion which consisted chiefly in the first esta-blishment of these three last genera.

1785. Boddaert imitated chiefly Erxleben,or rather Buffon, for the Simiae : in respectto the Makis, he separated them into Lemurand Lori, calling them all Quadrumana; aname invented by Buffon, and, although verygenerally adopted, in reality inexact, that is,not scientific.

1792. Daubenton, in his " MammalogicalSystem," written by him for the " MethodicalEncyclopedia" of Vicq-d’Azyr, followed thesame errors as in the " Natural History" ofBuffon ; but from a consideration of the inci-sive teeth, he proposed the establishment ofthe genera Lori and Tarsier, and the substi-tution of the term Pedimana for that ofQuadrumana; and, in fact, less exception-able, although equally applicable to theSariques and to the Simiae.

1795. Messrs. Geoffroy and Cuvier em-ployed this denomination (Pedimana) for thefirst order of Mammals ; and, moreover, fol-lowing the views of Brisson and Daubenton,in respect to the number of the incisive teeth,they proposed establishing the genera Indri,Cucang and Khoyak (Galago), besides thoseof the Loris and Tarsiers, already proposedby their predecessors. But they continuedto comprise under the term Simia all theApes : the happy approximation of the Gale-opithecus to the Lemur was not admitted bythem, although proposed by Linnaeus andconfirmed by Pallas ; and they included thisgenus amongst the Bats, which even Pennanthad not done, although he was the realfounder of the division of Bats or the Chei-roptera.

1798. Shortly after the publication of thisfirst work, M. G. Cuvier, in his " Tableaude l’Histoire Naturelle des Animaux," imi-tating Camper in respect to the facial angle,broke through all the natural relations ofthese animals, and confused the excellentarrangement of Buffon. In fact, in his sub-division of the genus Simia, after the Apescome the Sapajous, then the Guenons, andthe Baboons; the Alouates being entirelyseparated from the Sapajous. The sole ad-vantage resulting from this consideration ofthe facial angle has been, to place theMagots, although tail-less, with the Maca-ques, separating them from the Chimpanzéeand Orang-Outan ; but a serious disadvan-tage is, that the Pongo came to be placed bythe side of the Mandrill, and far removedfrom the Orang-Outan, of which it is onlythe adult animal! and although Camper hadalready designated it the Great Orang-Outan !

This unhappy innovation, resulting from arigorous employment of the facial angle as acharacter in the distribution of the Apes, wasat first followed by M. De Lacepede, who,nevertheless, imitated Buffon in distinguish-ing the Sagouins from the Sapaious. and the

692

Alouatcs from these latter, but without only the Apes of both continents, which Iplacing them apart. He followed Dauben. called Pitheci and Pithecia, ; but also to in-ton and Geoffroy in the arrangement of the elude among the Makis the Galeopitheci andMakis. the Aye-Aye, which Messrs. Geoffroy andM. George Cuvier, in the tables annexed Cuvier had removed, and to join to this

to the first volume of his " Lecons d’Ana- order, as an anomaly still more remarkable,tomie Comparee," persisted in his system, the Sloths, viewed, in fdct, by several ancientgiving Latin names to the subdivisions by zoologists, as Apes.this time raised to the rank of genera. But t Although, in the Mammalogical system ofinadvertently, without doubt, lie reversed the Oken (1816), there is often a sort of confu-names given by Erxleben to the American sion somewhat difficult to clear up, we

Apes; calling the Sapajous and the Sagouins, may observe, that in his first order,Callithrix, and the Alouates, Cebus. which, however, he makes the last, following

Audebert, in spite of the tendency which the method of Hill and M. de Laillareli, whomost ?nen have to follow ill the track of those reversed the animal series, he comprises, forwcho set theinselves up as refoorners, still, in some unknown reason, the Damans mingledevery respect, imitated Buffon in his icono- with the Sloths ; the Marsupialia. with Ro-graphic work on the Primates, defining dentia and Carnivora. The two first littlethe divisions more rigorously. Thus he groups or cohorts include, the one, the Galeo-again placed the Magot with the first spe- pitheci and the Aye-Aye with the Lemurs ofcies. viz., the Chimpanz6e, &c. Linnaeus ; and the second, the Apes, sub-

1806. Desmarest and some other zoologists divided into Cebus or Apes of the new con-followed precisely the system of Cuvier. He tinent; Cercopithecus or Apes of the oldadded an additional division to the Sapajous continent having a tail, (although, by inad-with non-prehensile tail, the Sakis, which he vertence without doubt, he arranged withnamed l’ithecia. them the Magot, which has no trace of a

1811. Thus, after the false impetus given tail,) and into Simia, comprising, with thefor ten years to the systematic distribution of Orang-Outan, the Chimpanzée, Gibbons, andApes from a consideration of their facial the Simia Sylvanus, understood at that periodangle, Illiger again returned to the principles to be the young of the Magot. So that, inof Bunbn and Daubenton, characterising fact, Mr. Oken, on his part, had endeavouredmore carefully the subdivisions of Audebert, to circumscribe the order pretty much as weby a minute examination, not only of the ourselves had done.number of teeth but also of their form, and the 1817. In the first edition of his " Regnenumber of tubercles of the molar teeth, which Animal," even George Cuvier had returnedlie showed to be five in the last inferior molar to the method of Buffon, taking no furtherin certain species. To Illiger, also, we owe notice nf the facial angle! although he stillthe employment of the consideration of the placed the Pongo or adult Orang after theexistence or absence of a thumb on the hands Mandrill: in other respects he followedof the species of the old continent, as M.M. pretty nearly the methodical arrangement ofGeoffroy had just done, a short time pre- the Quadrumana, published by M. Geoffroyviously, for those of the new continent. He in the " Annales du Museum," and whichattended also, in a special manner, to the differed from that of Illiger only in names.existence or absence of ischiatic callosities ; Only, as might very readily be supposed, theand from this exaggerated, perhaps, the innovations suggested by me were not ac-number of generic subdivisions : but the cepted ; and the Aye-Aye remains amongstgreatest error committed by Illiger, was his the Rodents by the side of the Squirrel, thealtering so extensively the previous nomen- Galeopitheci amongst the Cheiroptera (al-clature, forgetful of what even Linnaeus him- though the hands are not formed like wings),self had admitted, viz., that greater inconve- and the Sloths with the Edenta!a!11ience i-esulteci from the chaiig-e of u term, In spite of this determination on the partthough bad, A)- a better one, not generally of M. Cuvier to abandon, only by halves, hisreceived. original system, returning to the method of

Notwithstanding all this, the distribution Buffon perfected by Illiger, and adoptedof the Quadrumana has undergone but slight pretty nearly by Mr. Goldfuss and by M.modifications since the publication of Illiger’s l’Abbé Ranzani, modern geologists appearwork ; and these modiiications are limited to disposed to accept of some of the alterations,a circumscribing of the genera in respect to at least, proposed by me. 1st, By admittingthe number of species. the Pongo to be the adult male of the Orang-

1816. Thus in my" Proclrome d’uiie Nou- Outan, and comprising afterwards defini-velle Distribution du Regne Animal," pub- tively the Aye-Aye and Galeopithecuslished in 1S16, when introducing new consi- amongst the Primates. A greater difficultyderations, considered, by me at least, superior existed in regard to the Sloths ; and Waglerto those drawn from the digital and dentar and Oken, so far as I know, have alonesy sterns hitherto predominant, I was led to adopted the proposed innovation.consider the first degree of organisation of Since the publication of the first edition,Mammls or the Primates, as including not and even of the second, of Cuvier’s " Regne

693

Animal," in which the Pongo, for the firsttime, is in its proper place, the number ofspecies of the Quadrumana has been muchincreased, although, perhaps, not absolutelyso; and amongst these species, some authorshave filled up the vacuum in sections alreadyestablished ; and even M. F. Cuvier, whosework on the Mammalia of the Menageriehas often furnished interesting elements to

science, imagined that he had discovered thetype of a genus which he named Semnopi-.thecus, by applying to the Guenons the consi-deration of the fifth tubercle of the lastinferior molar which Illiger had employed tocharacterise the Cynocephali.The subsequent labours of Spix, Isidore

Geoffroy, Bennett, and Jourdan, are scarcelysufficiently characteristic to be admitted.However this may be, in the actual state ofour knowledge of the Primates, the result ofall previous inquiries may be summed up asfollows. I

Aristotle established the division of Apes,from a consideration of the tail and of the

muzzle, and he also laid the foundation oftheir nomenclature.Gesner showed how the new species, dis-

covered in America, might be introducedinto the system of Aristotle ; he was imitatedand improved on by Ray towards the end ofthe seventeenth century.

Brisson, in 1756, made an important step,when, from a consideration of the incisivedentar system, he subdivided the order intotwo sub-orders-Apes (Sinaii) and Makis(Prosimii).

Buffon and Daubenton, in 1767, made astill more important step, not only by adopt-ing this division, at the same time doublingor trebling the number of species, but by in-troducing, in order to separate them intolittle groups, the consideration of the formof the nostrils, the ischiatic callosities, cheekpouches, and prehensile tail, and, finally, thegeographical distribution.

In this they were imitated, using the Lin-næan nomenclature, by Erxleben in 1777,and Audebert in 1800, in spite of the errorinto which the too rigorous application of theconsideration of the facial angle had, for atime, led astray Messrs. Cuvier and Geoffroy.

After a somewhat short era of imitation in

France, although much more lengthened thanin other countries, Illiger, in 1811, returningto the views of Buffon, adds a new considera-tion, that of the number of molar teeth and oftheir tubercles, so that, by employing morecarefully all the considerations enumerated

above, and which had been used before hisday, and following E. Geoffroy in adopting,as a character, the proportional length of thethumb, there resulted a system ofpithecologyalmost complete ; to which, since that period,has been added the reintroduction, on mypart, of certain genera, and a more completedistinction as to species, in perfecting which,

M. F. Cuvier’s work on the Mammalia. ofthe Menagerie, has not a little contributed.So that, at present, zoologists are nearly

agreed :-1 st, In respect to the position of this order

at the head of Mammals, and, consequently,as the commencement of the animal series.

2nd, In respect to its limitation, with theexception, perhaps, of the Sloths, or Bradypus.

3rd, In respect to its arrangement, com-mencing with the Chimpanzée, as nearest toMan; and terminating with the Galeopithecus,as most allied to Bats, which commence theSecundates.

4th, In respect to the limitation of theprincipal groups, or interior distribution ofthe order, with the exception, however, ofthe nomenclature.

COURSE OF LECTURESON THE

DISEASES OF THE EYE,Delivered in 1839-40,

AT THE

ROYAL SCHOOL OF ANATOMY AND MEDICINE,

MANCHESTER,

By JOHN WALKER, Esq., Surgeon.

LECTURE XI.

STAPHYLOMA CORNER.

I HAVE before pointed out that, in theprogress of the more violent inflammatoryaffections of the eye, and particularly suchas are attended with ulceration and slough-ing of the cornea, sometimes a considerablealteration becomes observable in the figureand appearance of that structure,-that itis often protruded between the palpebræ inthe form of an opaque tumour, causing notonly a highly disagreeable appearance, butlikewise a considerable amount of irrita.tion. This condition is named staphyloma,because the diseased structure bears someresemblance to a grape.The figure of the projecting part is apt to

vary, but it is always more or less rounded,being in some cases of the form of the-healthy cornea, but more prominent; in

others, it tapers off to a point; and in-

others, again, several small irregular projec-tions are noticed. Hence the different terms

spherical staphyloma, corrical staphyloma, andstaphyloma racemosum; the last term irnply-ing a condition somewhat resembling a

cluster of small grapes. According to theextent to which the cornea is implicated, itis also named total or partial staphyloma.

Conical staphyloma is usually regardedas the result of a large penetrating ulcer orslough, which has occupied the centre ofthe cornea; whilst the spherical variety isthought to be produced by a general yield-