Part 7

Next to these apes, we meet with another race of animals, which we shall indicate by the generic name of the _baboon_; and to distinguish them clearly from every other animal of the kind, it is necessary to observe that the baboon has a short tail, a long face, a broad muzzle, with canine teeth, larger in proportion than that of man, and callosities on its rump. By this definition, we exclude from this race all the apes which have no tails, all the monkies whose tails are as long, or longer than their bodies, and all the makis, loris, and other four-handed animals, that have their muzzles sharp and pointed. The ancients never had a proper name for these animals; Aristotle alone has pointed out one of those baboons by the name of _simia porcaria_, but gives a very imperfect indication of it in other respects. The Italians first called it _babuino_, the Germans _bavion_, the French _babouin_, the English _baboon_, and every modern author, who has written of it in Latin, _papio_. We shall therefore term it baboon, to distinguish it from the other species since discovered in the southern provinces of Africa and India. We are acquainted with three kinds of these animals. 1. The _baboon_, which is found in Arabia, &c. and which, probably, is the _simia porcaria_ of Aristotle. 2. The _mandrill_, which is larger than the baboon, whose face is of a bluish colour, and furrowed with deep and oblique wrinkles; this is a native of Guinea, and the hottest parts of Africa. 3. The _ouanderou_, which is less than the baboon and mandrill; its head and face is surrounded with a very thick and long hair, and has a large white beard; it is seen in Ceylon, Malabar, and other southern parts of India. Thus we have precisely defined three species of the ape, and three of the baboon, and all of them very distinctly differing from each other.

But as Nature acts on one regular plan, connected and extended throughout all her works, and as her progress is always by minute degrees, there must be an intermediate species between the ape and the baboon. This intermediate species actually exists, and is, in fact, to be found in the _magot_, which fills up the chasm between the other two. It differs from the first in having a long muzzle and large canine teeth; and varies from the second, in not having any tail, although there is a small protuberance of skin at that part, which has something of that appearance. This animal, consequently, is neither an ape, nor a baboon, yet, at the same time, partakes of the nature of both. The magot, which is a very common animal in Upper Egypt, as well as in Barbary, was known to the ancients. The Greeks and Latins denominated it _cynocephalus_, because its muzzle resembles that of a dog. These animals, then, must be ranged in the following order: _orang-outang_, or _pongo_, is the first ape; the _pithecos_, the second; the _gibbon_, the third; the _cynocephalus_, or _magot_, the fourth ape, or the first baboon. The _papio_, the first baboon; the _mandrill_, the second; and the _ouanderou_, the third. This order is neither arbitrary nor fictitious, but strictly conformable to the steps of Nature.

After the species of apes and baboons, immediately follow the _guenons_, or _monkies_; that is, animals which resemble the two former, but which have tails as long, or longer than their bodies. The word guenon was anciently employed, sometimes to denote a small ape, and at others, the female; it has also been used in the sense we now take it, to denote the apes with long tails, and was probably derived from the word _kébos_, which the Greeks made use of for that very purpose. Of these _guenons_, or _monkies_, we know of nine species, which we shall distinguish by different names, to avoid confusion, and for the sake of regularity. The first of these is the _macaque_; the second, the _patas_, or _red monkey_; the third, the _malbrouck_; the fourth, the _mangabey_; the fifth the _mone_; the sixth, the _callitrix_, or _green monkey_; the seventh, the _moustac_; the eighth, the _talapoin_; and the ninth, the _douc_, so called in Cochin-China, of which country it is a native. The ancients knew only two of this class, the mone and the callitrix, which inhabit Arabia and the northern parts of Africa; they had not the least idea of any other, for they are only to be found in the southern provinces of Africa and the East Indies, countries absolutely unknown in the time of Aristotle. This great philosopher, and the Greeks in general, were so careful to affix proper names to different animals, that they denominated the ape without a tail, _pithecos_, and the monkey with a long tail, _kébos_, both of which they carefully drew from the most apparent character of these animals. All the apes and baboons which they knew, had a uniform colour; on the contrary, the monkey which we call _mone_, and the Greeks, _kébos_, has hair of different colours, and is vulgarly called the _variegated monkey_; this species was the most common of all those animals in the time of Aristotle; and from this character it obtained the name of _kébos_, which in Greek signifies a variety of colours. Thus all the animals of the ape, baboon, and monkey kind, mentioned by Aristotle, may be reduced to four, the _pithecos_, the _cynocephalus_, the _simia porcaria_, and the _kébos_; which we think ourselves sufficiently justified to rank as the _pithecos_ or _pigmy_, the _magot_, the _baboon_, and the _mone_, not only because their particular characters perfectly agree with those mentioned by Aristotle, but also, because the other species must have been absolutely unknown to him, since they are natives of those countries into which the Greek travellers of his time had not penetrated.

Two or three ages after Aristotle, we meet with two new names in the Greek authors, _callithrix_ and _cercopithecos_, both relative to the long-tailed monkey. In proportion as discoveries were made, in the southern regions of Africa and Asia, we meet with new animals, and other species of monkies; and as most of these monkies likewise were not of various colours like the kébos, the Greeks composed the generic name of _cercopithecos_, that is, the _ape with a tail_, to denote all the species of monkies, or apes with long tails; and having discovered among them one of a beautiful green colour, they called it _callithrix_, which signifies beautiful hair. This callithrix is found in the southern parts of Mauritania, and in the neighbouring countries of Cape Verd, and commonly known by the name of the _green ape_.

With respect to the other seven species of monkies, which we have indicated by the names of Macaque, Patas, Malbrouck, Mangabey, Moustac, Talapoin, and Douc, they were unknown to the ancients. The macaque is a native of Congo, the patas of Senegal, the mangabey of Madagascar, the malbrouk of Bengal, the moustac of Guinea, the talapoin of Siam, and the douc of Cochin-China; all these places were equally unknown to the ancients, and we have been careful to preserve the original names affixed to them in their native countries.

But as Nature always proceeds in a regular and gradual manner, never leaving any chasms, we meet with an intermediate species between the baboon and monkey, like that of the magot between the ape and the baboon. The animal which fills up this interval, greatly resembles the monkey, especially the macaque, but it has a broad muzzle, and short tail, like the baboon. Being ignorant of its proper name, we have called it the _maimon_, to distinguish it from other animals of this kind. It is a native of Sumatra, and is the only animal, as well among the baboon as the monkey species, that has no hair on its tail; and upon that account it has been described by the denomination of the _pig-tailed_ or _rat-tailed ape_.

Thus we have enumerated all the animals of the old continent, to which the common name of ape has been given, though they are not only of very distant species, but even of very different genera. But what has completed the error and confusion in the arrangement of these animals is, that the names of _ape_, _cynocephalus_, _kébos_, _cercopithecos_, which were invented by the Greeks fifteen hundred years ago, have been given to animals of the new continent, which have been discovered within these two or three centuries. They knew not that the animals of Africa and of the East Indies, were not to be found in the southern parts of the new continent. Animals have been found in America with hands and fingers, and this character alone was thought sufficient to give them the appellation of apes, without considering that for transferring a name it was requisite that the animals should be of the same genus, and to apply it justly, of the same identical species. Now the animals of America, of which we shall form two classes, by the names of _sapajous_ and _sagoins_, are very different from all the monkeys of Asia and Africa; and in the same manner as there are neither apes, monkeys, nor baboons, to be found in the new continent, so likewise there are neither the sapajous nor sagoins to be found in the old. Though we have already mentioned these facts in general, in our dissertation concerning the animals of the two continents, we can here prove it in a more particular manner, and demonstrate, that of seventeen species, to which number we may reduce all the ape species in the old continent, and of twelve or thirteen, to which this name of ape has been transferred in the new, there is not any of them alike, or to be found in both continents, for of the seventeen in the old we must first retrench three or four of the apes, who do not exist in America, and to whom the sapajous and the sagoins have no resemblance. Secondly, we must also retrench three or four of the baboons, which are much larger than the sagoins or the sapajous, and also of a very different form; there remains, therefore, only nine monkeys of the old continent with whom any comparison can be made. Now this species of monkeys, as well as the apes and baboons, have particular and general characters, which entirely separate them from the sapajous and sagoins. The first of these characters consists in the rump being bare, on which are natural callosities peculiar to those parts. The second is the having pouches on each side of the jaw, in which the animal can store its food. The third is in the make of the nostrils, which are narrow, and the apertures placed in the under parts, like those of man. The sapajous and sagoins have not one of these characters. The partition between their nostrils is very thick, and the apertures are placed on the sides of the nose, and not below it. They have hair on their posteriors, and no callosities; they have no pouches on each side of their jaws; and hence these animals differ not only in species but even in genus, since they have not any of the general characters common to the whole tribe of monkeys; and this difference in genus supposes still greater in the species, and demonstrates them to be quite distinct from each other.

The names of ape and monkey, therefore, have been very improperly applied to the sapajous and the sagoins. We must preserve their original names, and instead of ranking them with the apes, we should begin by comparing them together. These two families differ from each other by a very remarkable character. All the sapajous make use of their tails like a finger to hang by, and to procure what they cannot reach with their hands. The sagoins, on the contrary, cannot make use of their tail in that manner. Their face, ears, and hair, are also different; we may, therefore, very properly divide them into two distinct races.

Avoiding the use of denominations, which can only be applied to the monkey, baboon, or ape, we have endeavoured to indicate the sapajous and the sagoins by the names they bear in their native country. We are acquainted with six or seven species of sapajous, and six of the sagoins, most of which have varieties. We have carefully searched after their names in all authors, and particularly in the writings of observant travellers who have first mentioned them, because, in general, the names which any one of them have in their native country is derived from some particular character, which alone was sufficient to distinguish it from all the rest. With respect to the varieties, which in this class of animals are, perhaps, more numerous than the species, we have endeavoured to refer each to its respective species. We have had in our possession forty of these animals alive, differing from each other in a greater or less degree, and from a particular and attentive examination of which, we think the whole may be reduced to thirty species, viz. three apes, and one intermediate species between them and the baboons; three baboons, and one intermediate species between them and the monkeys; nine monkeys, seven sapajous, and six sagoins; the rest, or at least the greatest part of them, ought to be considered only as varieties. But as we are not absolutely certain that some of these varieties may not be distinct species, we shall endeavour to give all of them proper denominations.

Here, then, let us consider terrestrial animals, some of which so greatly resemble the human form, in a new point of view. The affixing the name of _quadruped_ to all these animals has been done unjustly. If the exceptions were few we should not have objected to the application of this term. We are convinced that our definitions and names, however general, do not comprehend the whole; that there exists particular beings, which escape the most cautious definitions, and that intermediate species are constantly discovered. We know that many, though to all appearance holding the middle station, have escaped enumeration, and that the general names under which they are included is incomplete; because Nature should never be considered in the aggregate, but by unities only, because man has invented general names only to assist his memory, and because he afterwards weakly regarded those general names as realities; in short, because he has endeavoured to comprehend, under the same denominations, very different animals, and which necessarily required other appellations. I can give both example and proof, without swerving from the class of quadrupeds, which, of all animals, are those best known to man, and to which he was, consequently, the best enabled to give the most precise denominations.

The name of _quadruped_ supposes an animal with _four feet_. If it be deficient in two, like the manati; if it have hands and arms like the ape; or if it have wings like the bat; it is not a quadruped: therefore this general denomination is erroneous when applied to either of those animals. In order to speak with precision, there should be truth in the ideas which the words represent; for instance, let us find a word to convey a perfect idea of an animal with two hands; if we had a term to denote a two-handed animal, as well as one with two feet, we might then say, that man alone is biped and bimanous, because he alone has two hands and two feet; that the manati is only _bimanous_; that the bat is only a _biped_; and the ape a _quadrimanous_, or four-handed animal. Let us now apply these _new_ denominations to every particular being with which they agree, and we shall discover, that from the two hundred species of animals to which we have given the common name of _quadrupeds_, there are thirty-five sorts of apes, baboons, monkeys, sapajous, sagoins, and makis, must be retrenched, as they are _quadrimanous_, or four-handed; and that to those thirty-five species we must add the lori, the murine, Virginian and Mexican opossums, and the jerboas, which are also _quadrimanous_, like those above-mentioned, and that, consequently, the list of four-handed animals being at least composed of forty species, the real number of quadrupeds will be reduced one fifth part. If afterwards we take out twelve or fifteen species of bipeds, namely, the bats, whose fore-feet may rather be called wings than feet, and also three or four jerboas, because they can only walk on their hind feet, those before being too short; if we remove also the manati, which has no hind feet, and the different species of the walrus, and the seal, to which animals they are entirely useless, the number of quadrupeds will be found diminished a third more; and if we still subtract those animals which make use of their fore-feet like hands, as the bears, marmots, coatis, squirrels, rats, and many others, the denomination of quadrupeds will appear to be misapplied to more than one half of these animals. In fact real quadrupeds consist only of whole and cloven-footed animals. When we descend to the digitated class, we find four-handed, or ambiguous quadrupeds, who use their fore-feet in the manner of hands, and which ought to be distinguished or separated from the rest. There are three species of whole hoofed animals, the horse, the zebra, and the ass; and, by adding the elephant, the rhinoceros, the hippopotamus, and the camel, whose feet, though terminated by nails, are solid, and only serve for the purpose of walking, we shall have seven species to which the name of quadruped perfectly applies.

There is a much greater number of cloven-footed than whole-hoofed animals. The oxen, the sheep, the goat, the antelope, the bubalus, the lama, the pacos, the elk, the rein-deer, the stag, the fallow-deer, the roe-buck, &c. are all cloven-footed, and compose all together full forty-species. Thus, we have already fifty animals, ten whole hoofed, and forty cloven-footed, to which the name of quadruped has been rightly applied. In the digitated animals, the lion, tiger, panther, leopard, lynx, cat, wolf, fox, dog, hyæna, civet, badger, weasel, ferret, porcupine, hedge hog, armadillo, ant-eaters, and hog, which last constitutes the shade between digitated and cloven-footed tribes, add more than forty other species, to which the name of quadruped also applies in all the rigour of its acceptation; because, though their fore-feet are divided into four or five toes, they never use them as hands; but all the other digitated species who use their fore-feet to hold and carry food to their mouths, are not, in strict propriety, quadrupeds. Those species, which are also forty in number, form an intermediate class between quadrupeds and four-handed animals, and are in fact neither one nor the other. Therefore, to more than a fourth of our animals, the name of quadruped does not apply; and with more than one half it does not agree in all the extent of its acceptation.

The four-handed animals fill up the great chasm between the quadruped and the human species. The two handed are in the distance between man and the cetaceous tribes. The bipeds with wings are the shade between quadrupeds and birds; and the digitated species who use their fore-feet as hands, fill up all the degrees between the quadrupeds and the four-handed kinds. But this subject is too extensive to be here pursued; however useful it might be to give a distinct knowledge of animals, it is still more so by furnishing us with a new proof, that not any of our definitions are precise, nor our general terms exact, when specifically applied to objects, or to beings which they represent.

But why are these definitions and general terms, which seem to be the master-piece of invention, so exceedingly defective? Is this error the defect of human understanding? or rather, is it not an incapacity, or pure inability, of combining, and perceiving a number of objects at one view? Let us compare the works of nature with those of man: let us examine how both operate, and then enquire whether the human mind, however active and extensive, can follow the same route, without being lost either in the immensity of space, the obscurity of time, or in the infinite combinations of beings? Let a man direct his mind to any object if he would avoid being misled, he must walk in a direct line, pass over the least space, and employ the least possible time to accomplish his end. But in this pursuit, what a number of reflections and combinations must he make to avoid those deceitful and fallacious roads which at first offer themselves in such numbers, that it requires the greatest and nicest discernment to choose the true and direct path? This path, however, is not beyond the depth of the human mind; and by this only sure and solid method he arrives at the destined point of view; but if he seeks another point, it can only be obtained by another line. The train of our ideas is a delicate thread, which only extends in length without any other dimensions; while Nature, on the contrary, does not take a single step, without extending on all sides, and passing at once through the three dimensions of length, breadth and thickness; while man attains but one single point, she embraces all, and penetrates into every part of a solid mass. By the power of art, and length of time, our statuaries form a figure which externally resembles the object proposed; each point of this surface requires a thousand combinations. Their genius travels over as many lines as there are lineaments in the figure, and the least false step would deform it. This piece of marble, so perfectly executed that it seems to breathe, is, therefore, only a multitude of points to which the artist arrives by labour and time; for human genius being unable to seize more than one dimension at a time, and our senses reaching no further than surfaces, we cannot penetrate the substance; while, Nature, on the contrary, designs and enters into the depth of things; she produces forms almost instantaneously; she at once expands them in all their dimensions; as soon as her movements reach the surface, the penetrating powers with which she is animated, operate internally. The smallest atom, when she chooses to make use of it, is obliged to obey her will. Her actions, therefore, extend over all; she travels above, below, to the right and left, and consequently, she not only encompasses the surface, but every particle of the mass. What difference there consequently is in the result? What comparison can be made between a statue and an organised body? But also what inequality in their powers, and how disproportioned the instruments! Man can only make use of the power he possesses. Confined to a small quantity of motion, which he can only communicate by impulsion, he can only exert himself upon surfaces; since the power of impulsion in general is only transmitted by superficial contact. He only sees and touches, therefore, the surfaces of bodies, and when he attempts to proceed further, though he opens, divides, and separates, he still touches nothing more than surfaces. To penetrate the interior parts of bodies, he should be possessed of a portion of that power which acts upon the mass, or of gravity, which is Nature's chief instrument. It is, therefore, the defect of instruments which prevents the art of man from approaching that of Nature. His figures, his pictures, his designs, are only surfaces, or imitations of surfaces, because the images he receives by his senses are all superficial, and he is unable to give them the internal parts.