| OCR Text |
Show 1 9 0 4 .] ANTHROPOID APES. 4 3 9 Sumatran Subspecies. Pongo pygmceus | form, di morph. abelii (Clarke). bicolor, [ form, dimorph. bicolor (I. Geoff). I will now briefly summarise the results arrived at in this paper. I acknowledge, tentatively, 2 species of Gorilla, one with 3 subspecies ; but eventually, with more material available, I think we shall find only one species, Gorilla gorilla, with 4 or more local subspecies. I have acknowledged 5 species of Chimpanzee, for which 1 employ the generic name Simia, as the oldest name given to a Chimpanzee was Linnaeus's Simia satyrus for the Tschego. I characterise 3 local races of Simia satyrus, 2 of Simia vellerosus, and 5 of Simia pygmceus, while as yet only one race each of Simia aubryi and Simia koolookamba are known to me. Of Orang-Outans Pongo, I can recognise only one very variable species, which can 1)3 divided up into a number of subspecies. I have characterised 4 such, each with a dimorphic phase, but our knowledge is so impel'feet that I only wish to accept these 3 Bornean and 1 Sumatran races for the present, until a fresh lot of material arrives. Professor Matschie, as a result of his last journey, is preparing a paper describing a much larger number of forms of Orang and Chimpanzee than I have dealt with in this paper, dividing them also into several genera; but, while fully awake to the possibility of a large number of additional forms existing, I have noticed here only such forms as are known to me at the time of writing. In conclusion, I only wish to explain the standpoint I have taken up in writing this paper. My first contention relates purely to nomenclature. Hitherto, at least in Great Britain, zoologists have been divided as to the date to take as the starting-point for zoological nomenclature: ornithologists and entomologists taking Linnaeus's XII. edition of the ‘ Systema Naturae' of 1766, while mammalogists take the X. edition of 1758. Also it has been customary for different zoologists to admit or disallow various changes in nomenclature. This variety of opinions has led to much confusion, and 1 therefore consider, as all writers on mammals of recent years and also the bulk of German and American zoologists, that the only way to obtain a uniform and final nomenclature is to adopt the tenth edition of Linnaeus, and adhere absolutely to the strictest law of priority in nomenclature, however intrinsically absurd or unsuitable a name may be. I now come to my other contention. Much discussion has taken and is taking place as to the naming or not of local (i.e. geographical) races. The zoologists of the old school maintain that such races should not be named, and any variation of less than specific value should be ignored as regards the nomenclatorial point. The younger generation, however, declare that any distinction, however slight, ought to be signified by a name so long as it has geographical foundation. I am of the latter opinion. I am in favour of this method for many reasons ; one of which is, that by |
