17o Die Maij, 1699.  
Imprimatur Liber cui Titulus, Orang-Outang, five Homo Sylvestris, etc. Authore Edvardo Tyson M. D. R. S. S.  
John Hoskins V. P. R. S.   

Orang-Outang, sive Homo Sylvestris: OR, THE ANATOMY OF A pygmy Compared with that of a Monkey, an Ape, and a Man.  
To which is added, A PHILOLOGICAL ESSAY Concerning the Pigmies, the Cynocephali, the Satyrs, and Sphinxes of the ANCIENTS.  
Wherein it will appear that they are all either APES or MONKEYS, and not MEN, as formerly pretended.  
By EDWARD TYSON M. D. Fellow of the College of Physicians, and the Royal Society: Physician to the Hospital of Bethlem, and Reader of Anatomy at Chirurgeons-Hall.  
LONDON: Printed for Thomas Bennet at the Half-Moon in St. Paul's Churchyard; and Daniel Brown at the Blach Swan and Bible without Temple-Bar and are to be had of Mr. Hunt at the Repository in Gresham-Colledge. ● DC XCIX.   

TO THE RIGHT HONOURABLE JOHN Lord Summer, Baron of EVESHAM, Lord High Chancellor OF ENGLAND, One of the Lords of his MAJESTY'S most Honourable PRIVY COUNCIL, And Precedent of the ROYAL SOCIETY.  
SIR,  
THE great Variety of weighty and important Affairs, in which your Lordship is engaged; one would think, did so entirely engross your Time, that you could not have a Minute left to bestow on the Muses. Your unwearied and successful Application to the Business of the State, in the nicest Conjunctions, that perhaps England ever saw; as well as your inexpressible Labours in distributing Justice, in your High Station; have been attended with Universal Applause; and have convinced all the World, how much the Honour of his Majesty's Government, and the Happiness of his People, depend on the Capacity and Integrity of his Ministers. You have not suffered, even necessary Refreshments to interrupt your Constant Cares for the Public. To serve your Country, you have defranded yourself both of Meat, and Rest; which, my Lord, is the only Act of Injustice, that was ever charged upon you. Your immoderate Labours make daily Encroachments upon your Health; or at least 'tis the fear of every good Man, that they should. And yet your Lordship, notwithstanding all Dissuasions, perseveres inflexible; as if, animated by the Noble Spirit of an Old Roman, you were resolved to Sacrifice your Life, for the Good of your Country.  
And yet, my Lord, amidst such a multiplicity of the greatest Affairs, to which you pay a constant Attendance; you have not only found Time, to apply your Thoughts to all kinds of Literature, so as to become a great Master in all; But you have likewise extended your Care to the Interests of Learning, and to the Encouraging of those, who study the Advancement of it. Among many other Instances, your Lordship has lately condescended, to Preside over the Royal Society; that was instituted, for the Improvement of Natural Experimental Philosophy; and you have taken care, to Express your great Zeal and Readiness, to contribute every thing in your Power, to Protect their Interests, and Promote their Reputation. And under your Lordship's enlivening Influence, there is all the Reason in the World to expect, that Learning will again flourish there, as well as among other Orders of Men.  
This, my Lord, has so emboldened me, humbly to present this Performance to your Lordship. For since so Great a Patron of Letters is risen in the midst of us; we think we have a sort of Right to his Countenance and Protection. I wish the Present I presume to make you, was more worthy of your Lordship: All that I can say to recommend it, is, that the Subject is Novel, and that Care has been taken to give it a just Description; which, I may say, without vanity, never yet appeared in Public.  
'Tis a true Remark, which we cannot make without Admiration; That from Minerals, to Plants; from Plants, to Animals; and from Animals, to Men; the Transition is so gradual, that there appears a very great Similitude, as well between the meanest Plant, and some Minerals; as between the lowest Rank of Men, and the highest kind of Animals. The Animal of which I have given the Anatomy, coming nearest to Mankind; seems the Nexus of the Animal and Rational, as your Lordship and those of your High Rank and Order for Knowledge and Wisdom, approaching nearest to that kind of Being's which is next above us; Connect the Visible, and Invisible World.  
If this Performance shall Promote the Design of the Society, of which I have the Honour to be a Member, and which your Lordship is pleased to Preside over; by improving the Natural History of Animals, and affording the Reader any Delightful and Useful Instructions; I shall look on my Time and Pains, well rewarded. I am  
My Lord, Your Lordship's most humble and most obedient Servant EDWARD TYSON.   

THE PREFACE  
LEST this Discourse should be rejected merely for the Title's sake, as if 'twere intended only to divert the Reader, with the Recital of the Fabulous and Romantic Stories, which have been related on the Subjects I have proposed to treat of: I think it necessary to premise, that as my chief Design in this Undertaking is the Improvement of the Natural History of Animals, so I have made it my Business more, to find out the Truth, than to enlarge in the Mythology; to inform the Judgement, than to please the Fancy, And the Orang-Outang (whose Anatomy I here give) being a Creature so very remarkable, and rare; and not only in its External Shape, but much more in the Conformation of a great many of the inward Viscera, so much resembling a Man; I thought I could not be too particular, in my Description of it; though to some, who have not a Taste of these Matters, I may seem prolix and tedious.  
To render this Disquisition more useful, I have made a Comparative Survey of this Animal, with a Monkey, an Ape, and a Man. By viewing the same Parts of all those together, we may the better observe Nature's Gradation in the Formation of Animal Bodies, and the Transitions made from one to another; than which, nothing can more conduce to the Attainment of the true Knowledge, both of the Fabric and uses of the Parts. By following Nature's Clew in this wonderful Labyrinth of the Creation, we may be more easily admitted into her Secret Recesses, which Thread if we miss, we must needs err and be bewildered.  
In drawing up this Comparison, I have made use of the Anatomy which is given of Apes and Monkeys by other Authors; and very frequently have quoted their own words, which has rendered my Discourse much longer: For not having these Animals by me to dissect and compare, I thought it but just to let the Reader see, upon what Authorities ay went. And though a short Reference might be esteemed sufficient, without this tedious and unfashionable way of inserting the whole Text; yet if any one will give himself the trouble of Examining the Evidences I have produced, I think I have dealt more kindly by him, in making him a Judge himself; than in leaving him barely to trust to my Report. For there are none, who have been conversant with Books, but must acknowledge, that they have been often imposed upon, for want of this fair dealing, as I have myself Experienced in this present Enquiry. To avoid therefore this Error, my Caution it may be has lead me into another, which I hope the Reader will pardon, if he judges it such.  
Galen formerly dissected Apes and Monkeys, and recommended to his Scholars the frequent Anatomising them, as useful for the attaining the Knowledge of the Structure of the Parts in Humane Bodies. Had he met with our Animal, it had served his turn much better: Nor had he been liable to some Mistakes, which Vesalius charges him with, since in so many Parts, the Orang-Outang imitates a Man, more than Apes and Monkeys do. Not only Galen, but the greatest Anatomists we have had in this last Age, have exercised their Pens about them; as plainly appears in the ensuing Discourse, which sufficiently justifies me for engaging in this Argument: I wish I had so good an Apology for my Performance.  
This great Agreement, which I observed between the Orang-Outang, and a Man, put me upon considering, whether it might not afford the Occasion to the Ancients, of inventing the many Relations, which they have given us of several sorts of Men, which are no where to be met with but in their Writings. For I could not but think, there might be some Real Foundation for their Mythology; which made me more strictly inquire into their Records; and examining them, I always found something new, that insensibly lead me on far beyond what at first I intended: and if I do not deceive myself, I have at last gained a clearer Light in these Matters, than any that has hitherto appeared.  
For what created the greatest difficulty, was their calling them Men, but yet with an Epithet for distinction sake; as the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉; so the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc. i. e. the Wild Men, the Little Men, the Pygmaean Men, the Black Men, the Men with Dogs Faces, etc. yet at the same time I find that they made them 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Wild Beasts; and if so, no doubt but they were of the Quadrumanus kind; i. e. either Apes or Monkeys. And such were likewise the Satyrs, the Fauni, Pan, AEgipan, Sylvanus, Silenus, and the Nymphae, as also the Sphinxes of the Ancients.  
But so many Romances have been made about them, that not only Strabo formerly, but the most noted Men of Learning of late, have looked upon them as mere Fictions of the Poets, and have utterly denied them any real Being. Homer's Geranomachia therefore, or Fight of the Cranes and Pigmies I have rendered a probable Story. Aristotle's assertion of the being of Pigmies, I have vindicated from the false Glosses of others. The Conjectures of other Learned Men about them, I have examined: And by what I have said in the following Philological Essay, I think I have fully proved, that there were such Animals as the Ancients called Pigmies, Cynocephali, Satyrs, and Sphinxes; and that they were only Apes and Monkeys.  
Had my Leisure been greater, I had contracted the whole, and taken more care both in the Method, and Expression. But most of the vacant Hours from the necessary Attendance on the Business of my Profession, being taken up in Collecting Materials; to gratify the Importunity of my Friends, who constantly urged the Publication, I sent my Papers Sheet by Sheet to the Press, as I had time to transcribe them; so that I had not a view of them together, till they were printed. If I have discovered the Truth, 'twas what I aimed at, which always appears best, when least disguised, and it has been my chief Care in this Undertaking to pull off those Vails and Masks, wherewith the Poets and Poetical Historians have hitherto obscured it.   

Orang-Outang sive Homo Sylvestris: OR, THE ANATOMY OF A pygmy.  
THAT the Pigmies of the Ancients were a sort of Apes, and not of Humane Race, I shall endeavour to prove in the following Essay. And if the Pigmies were only Apes, then in all probability our Ape may be a Pigmies; a sort of Animal so much resembling Man, that both the Ancients and the Moderns have reputed it to be a Puny Race of Mankind, called to this day, Homo Sylvestris, The Wild Man; Orang-Outang, or a Man of the Woods; by the Africans Quoias' Morron; by others Baris, or Barris, and by the Portugese, the Savage. But observing that under these Names, they describe different Animals; for Distinction-sake, and to avoid Equivocation, I shall call the Subject, of which I am about to give the Anatomy, a pygmy, from its Stature; which I find to be just the same with the Stature of the Pigmies of the Ancients. Tulpius 'tis true, and Bontius, and Dapper do call it, Satyrus. And tho' I am of Opinion, that the Satyrs of the Ancients were of the Ape, or rather Monkey-kind; yet for the Reasons alleged in the following Essay, I cannot think our Animal a satire. The Baris or Barris, which they describe to be much taller than our Animal, probably may be what we call a Drill. But I must confess, there is so great Confusion in the Description of this sort of Creature, which I find is a very large Family (there being numerous Species of them) that in Transcribing the Authors that have wrote about them, 'tis almost impossible but to make mistakes; from the want of their well distinguishing them. I shall endeavour therefore in my Account of this, so to discriminate it, that it may be easily known again, wherever 'tis met with. Not that I think in a single Observation I can be so exact, but that I may be liable to make Errors myself, how careful soever I have been.  
I will not urge any thing more here, why I call it a pygmy: 'Tis necessary to give it a Name; and if what I offer in the ensuing Essay, does not sufficiently Account for the Denomination, I leave it to others to give it one more proper. What I shall most of all aim at in the following Discourse, will be to give as particular an Account as I can, of the formation and structure of all the Parts of this wonderful Animal; and to make a Comparative Survey of them, with the same Parts in a Humane Body, as likewise in the Ape and Monkey-kind. For tho' I own it to be of the Ape kind, yet, as we shall observe, in the Organization of abundance of its Parts, it more approaches to the Structure of the same in Men: But where it differs from a Man, there it resembles plainly the Common Ape, more than any other Animal.  
And tho' I may seem too tedious in discoursing so long upon a single subject, yet I have this to offer, that if we had an accurate and particular History of any one Species of Animal, it might in a great measure serve for the whole kind. Wherein they differ, might easily be taken notice of, and there would be no need of repeating any thing, wherein they all agreed. So formerly dissecting a Young Lion and a Cat at the same time, I wondered to find so very great Resemblance of all the Parts, both in the one and the other; that the Anatomy of the one might serve for the other, allowing for the Magnitude of the Parts, with very little other alteration: And not only for this, but for several other Animals, that belong to the same Family. I could have wished I had had the like Opportunity, when I was dissecting our pygmy, of comparing the same Parts with those of an Ape and a Monkey: For want of it, I have referred all along to the Accounts given us of the Anatomy of these Creatures by other Authors; which, tho' it renders my Discourse more prolix, yet I thought it would not be unacceptable to the Curious. But I shall take care to draw up in a shorter view, wherein our pygmy more resembled a Man, than an Ape and Monkey, and wherein it differed.  
Now notwithstanding our pygmy does so much resemble a Man in many of its Parts, more than any of the Apekind, or any other Animal in the World that I know of: Yet by no means do I look upon it as the Product of a mixed Generation; 'tis a Brute-Animal sui generis, and a particular Species of Ape. For when I was dissecting it, some Sea-Captains and Merchants who came to my House to see it, assured me, that they had seen a great many of them in Borneo, Sumatra, and other Parts, tho' this was brought from Angola in Africa; but was first taken a great deal higher up in the Country, and in Company with it there was a Female of the same kind.  
I shall have, hereafter occasion to make my Remarks on several Particulars, relating to its way of Living, it's Sagacity, Actions, and the like. I shall now therefore first of all describe its outward shape and figure; then look within, and observe the Mechanism there. But meeting with a Text in Aristotle, wherein he gives a general Description of the Apekind, I think it not amiss to Transcribe it; and by Commenting upon it, to show wherein our present Subject agrees with or differs from it; and what I have besides to Remark, I shall afterwards take notice of, and then proceed to the Anatomy of the Inward Parts.  
Aristotle's 
(1) Aristot. Hist. d● Animal. lib. 2. cap. 13. Ex Edit. Sealige●. 〈◊〉 p. 197, etc.  Text is this, which I shall give with Jul. Caes. Scaliger's Latin Translation: And as you may observe by the Letters of Reference, I have rendered each Paragraph into English, adding my Observations thereon.  
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  
(a) INter hominem, quadrupedúmque genus natura quaedam media, atque utrique communis est. Quales, simia, cebus, caniceps. (b) Est autem cebus simia caudata. (c) Caniceps communem cum simia formam habet: nisi quod & major & robustior est: faciémque habet caninae propiorem. Tum moribus existunt efferatioribus. Dentes quoque caniniores, atque firmiores. (d) Simiae partes quae coelum spectant, ut pilosae sunt: Proptereà quòd quadrupedum generi ascribuntur: Ita quae ad terram devergunt quoque: quia hominis speciem referunt. Name in homine, & quadrupedibus hoc contrario se habere modo supra dictum est. Caeterùm simiis crassus pilus, ac praedensus utraque in parte est. (e) Fjus verò facies multis modis humanae similis. Quip tum nares, tum auriculae: Item dentes tam primores, quam maxillares sunt propemodum tales, quails & homini. (f) Quinetiam quadrupedes caeterae ●ùm in utraque gena neutiquam palpebr●s habeant: ipsa habet, sed tenues admodum: t● nuiores verò inferiores, atque perpusillos: quibus carent quadrupedes aliae. (g) Ei sunt in pectore papillae du● parvarum mammarum. (h) Add hae●, hominis brachia, nisi hirta essent. Quae etiam sicut & crura hominis modo inflectat. Name & horum, & illorum curvaluras inter se habet contrarias. ay Tum manus, digitos, ungues, quasi humanos. Verùm haec omnia ferinam ad naturam potius vergunt. (k) Suus quidam modus pedibus, ac peculiaris. Etenim quasi manus quaedam magnae sunt. Quip & digiti in iis, veluti manuum, medio longissimo. Et planta manui similis, quanquam porrectior ad extremum usque, sicuti vola. (l) Cujus postremum callosius est: inepta, atque inexplanata calcanei similitudine. Pedum usus, & pro manibus, & pro pedibus: flectit enim eos manuum modo. (m) Superior brachij pars, & coxa, breves: si ad ulnae, & tibiae magnitudinem referantur. (n) Vmbilicus non prominet: sed durum quiddam ibi invenias. (o) Superae partes inferis majores: quasi si quinarium cum ternario conferas. Hoc autem tum ex quadrupedum natura: tum proptereà quòd pedes & manibus similes habet, & quasi ex pedum, manuùmque constitutione compositos. Nam calcanei postrema pedem, caeterae partes manum repraesentant. Habent enim digiti id, quod volam appellamus, (p) Quadrupedis habitu frequentiore est. (q) Proque co nates non habet: neque caudam, quoniam bipes. Sed perpusillam omnino illam, & notae tantúm gratia, (r) Foeminae genitale muliebri specie est: maribus canina potius, quam humana. (s) Cebi, sicuti diximus, caudati sunt. Vrtiverso generi viscera similia humanis.  
(a) Arist. Some Animals are of an intermediate Nature, between a Man and Quadrupeds, as Apes, the Cebi, and Cynocephali.  
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Theodorus Gaza thus renders this Passage: Sunt quae natura ancipite, partim hominem, partim Quadrupedem imitentur, sicut simiae, etc. Not that an Ape is part a Man, and part a Quadruped; inter Hominem & non Hominem non datur medium; The Terms being contradictory, one must be false. The Philosopher's meaning must therefore be, that in the formation of the Parts of the Body, the Ape, the Cebus, and Cynocephalus, are intermediate Species between a Man and other Quadrupeds, having several Parts of the Body form like Brutes; others more resembling those of Men. 
(2) Scaliger ibid. in Com, pag. 201.  Scaliger, a little after, hath this Remark; Ad eum namque modum summus Opifex Rerum seriem concatenavit a Planta ad Hominem; ut quasi sine ullo cohaereant intervallo, sie 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 cum Plantis Bruta conjungunt; sic cum homine simia Quadrupedes. Itaque in hominis quoque specie inveniamus Divinos, Humanos, feros. This Climax or Gradation can't but be taken notice of, by any that are curious in observing the Wonders of the Creation; and the more he observes it, the more venerable Ideas 'twill give him of the great Creator; and it would be the Perfection of Natural History, could it be attained, to enumerate and remark all the different Species, and their Gradual Perfections from one to another. Thus in the Ape and Monkey-kind, Aristotle's Cebus I look upon to be a degree above his Cynocephalus; and his Pithecus or Ape above his Cebus, and our pygmy a higher degree above any of them, we yet know, and more resembling a Man: But at the same time I take him to be wholly a Brute, tho' in the formation of the Body, and in the Sensitive or Brutal Soul, it may be, more resembling a Man, than any other Animal; so that in this Chain of the Creation, as an intermediate Link between an Ape and a Man, I would place our pygmy.  
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc. The Philosopher here does not enumerate all the several Species that are contained under the Ape and Monkey-kind; they are a very numerous and a large Classis of Animals. Scaliger upon the Place mentions several he had observed of both kinds; and all our Zoographers, and most Journals of Travels give a Description of a great many sorts of them. But for want of well distinguishing them, and ranging them into a Methodical Series, their History as yet is very confused and perplexed. Mr. Ray 
(3) Raij Synopsis Animal. pag. 1●8.  places these Animals under this general Title, Animalia Pede unguiculato Multisido, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 & 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 'Tis called Pithecus, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, quia facilè ab homine persuadeatur; and oftentimes this word is taken as a Genus which includes the whole; when strictly taken, it signisies an Ape without a Tail, and in Latin is called Simia; that which hath a Tail is called Cercopithecus, in English a Monkey. Thus 
(4) Material. Epig●●● lib. 14. Epigr. 202.  Martial. 
Callidus emissas eludere Simius Hastas,  
Si mihi Cauda foret, Cercopithecus eram.   
(b) Arist The Cebus is an Ape having a Tail.  

(5) Hist. de Quadruped. l. 1. p. 857.  Conradus Gesner thinks, that this Cebus of Aristotle, which he describes only as having a Tail, must be the Cercopithecus or Common Monkey, since he mentions not the Cebus any where else, and the Cercopithecus no where. 
(6) Plinij Hist. Nat. lib. 8. cap. 19 come Interpret. & Notis Jo. Harduini, p. 167.  Harduinus, in his Notes on Pliny, advises not to mistake the Cepus in Pliny, for the Cebus in Aristotle. (6) Pliny's words are these; Pompeij Magni primum Ludi ostenderunt Chama, quem Galli Rusium vocabant, effigy Lupi, Pardorum maculis. jidem ex AEthiopia quas vocant 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 quarum Pedes posteriores, Pedibus humanis & cruribus, priores manibus sure similes, hoc Animal postea Roma non vidit. And therefore because it was so uncommon as to be seen at Rome but once, it could not be the common Monkey. 
(7) Geograph. lib. 16. P. 533.  Strabo, out of Artemidorus, describes the Cepus thus: 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. That the Cepus hath the Face of a Lion, the rest of the Body like a Panther, and is of the bigness of a Dorcas or Roebuck. 
(8) Diodor, Sicul. Biblioth. Hist. l. 3. p.m. 168.  Diodorus Siculus hath much the same Description, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Which Laurentius Rodomanus thus renders. Cepus, i. e. Hortus (quem vocant) à totius Corporis decore & staturae venustate nomen accepit, fancy Leonem imitatur, & reliquo Pantheram, praeter magnitudinem, qua Dorcadi par est. 
(9) AElian. de Animal. lib. 17. cap. 8. p. 474.  AElian hath given a Description of the same Animal from Pythagoras, from whom, 'tis thought, it first received this Name; and he is more particular. His Account, tho' somewhat long; I will give in P. Gillius' Translation, because I am apt to think this Animal is still in being. Terrenum quoddam Animal Pythagoras scribit secundùm Mare Rubrum procreari & Cepum, hoc est Hortum appositè idcircò nominari, quòd tanquam Hortus variis coloribus distinguatur. cum existit confirmata aetate, pari magnitudine est cum Herythriensibus Canibus. Jam porro ejus Colorum varietatem, sicut ille scribit, animus nobis est explicare. Ejus caput & posticas partes ad caudam usque prorsus valde igneo colore sunt, tum aurei quidam Pili disseminati spectantur, tum album rostrum, inde ad Collum aureae vittae pertinent, Colli inferiores partes ad Pectus, & anteriores Pedes omnino albi, Mammae duae manum implentes caeruleo colore visuntur, venture candidus, Pedes posteriores nigri sunt, Rostri formae Cynocephalo recte comparari potest. The Cepus therefore of Pliny, Strabo, Diodorus Siculus, and AElian, in all probability must be different from the Cebus of Aristotle. Joh. Caius our Countryman sent Gesner a Description of a Mamomet or Marmoset he had observed, which Gesner thinks might be a sort of Cepus; but the Colours were different, as likewise the Magnitude.  
(c) Arist. The Cynocephali have the same shape with Monkeys, but they are bigger, and Stronger, and they have a Face liker a Dogs', and are of a fiercer Nature, and they have Teeth liker a Dog's, and stronger.  
I shall have occasion to Discourse of these Cynocephali in the ensuing Essay. For tho' the Philosopher makes them only a sort of Ape or Monkey, yet there have been those, that would impose them on the World for a Race of Men; and by 
(10) AElian. Hist. de Anim. lib. 10. cap. 26. in Edit. P. Gillij. in aliis cap. 25.  AElian they are called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉; tho' 
(11) Galen. 〈◊〉 ministr. Anat. l. 1. cap. 2.  Galen tells us, they are much less like a Man, than an Ape is: For they can scarce stand upright, much less walk or run so. 
(12) Philostorgij Hist. Ecclesiast. lib. 3. cap. 11. p. 41.  Philostorgius mentions the Aegopithecus, the Arctopithecus, the Leontopithecus, as well as the Cynocephalus, and then adds, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. That there is the Goat-Ape, the Bear-Ape, the Lion-Ape, the Dog-Ape; and that the Apekind have a resemblance to a great many other Animals; so large and numerous is this Classis of Animals, that perhaps there is none that is more; and that are so different from one another. The sierceness of the Cynocephali is taken notice of by all; our pygmy was quite of another temper, the most gentle and loving Creature that could be. Those that he knew a Shipboard he would come and embrace with the greatest tenderness, opening their Bosoms, and clasping his Hands about them; and as I was informed, tho' there were Monkeys aboard, yet 'twas observed he would never associate with them, and as if nothing akin to them, would always avoid their Company. The Teeth of the Cynocephali are like a Dog's; those of our pygmy exactly resembled a Man's, as I shall show in the Osteology.  
(d) Arist. Apes are hairy on their Backs, as they are Quadrupeds, and on their Bellies, as they are like Men: For in a Man and a Beast this hairiness is quite contrary, as was said before. So that Apes are very hairy in both Places, their Hair being strong or course, and thick, set.  
The Place that Aristotle refers to, is this. 
(13) Arist. Hist. de Animal. lib. 2. c. 5. p. 160. Edit. Scalig.  〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. i e. That in Brutus' the Back or upper Parts are more hairy, the Belly or under Parts either smooth or less hairy: In a Man is observed the contrary. But in our pygmy we observed it different; for here all behind from the Head downwards, 'twas very hairy, and the Hair so thick, that it covered the Skin almost from being seen. But in all the Parts before, the Hair was much thinner, and the Skin every where appeared, and in some places 'twas almost bare. Nature therefore has clothed it with Hair, as a Brute, to defend it from the Injuries of the Wether; and when it goes on all four, as a Quadruped, it seems all hairy: When it goes erect, as a Biped, it appears before less hairy, and more like a Man. After our pygmy was taken, and a little used to wear clothes, it was fond enough of them; and what it could not put on himself, it would bring in his Hands to some of the Company to help him to put on. It would lie in a Bed, place his Head on the Pillow, and pull the clothes over him, as a Man would do; but was so careless, and so very a Brute, as to do all Nature's Occasions there. It was very full of Lice when it came under my Hands, which it may be it got on Shipboard, for they were exactly like those on Humane Bodies. 
(14) Franc. Redi Experimenta circa generat. Insector.  Signior Redi observes in most Animals a particular sort of Louse, and gives the Figures of a great many.  
The Hair of our pygmy or Wild Man was of a Coalblack colour, and straight; and much more resembling the Hair of Men than the Fur of Brutes: For in the Fur of Brutes, besides the longer Hair, there is usually a finer and shorter Pile intermixed: Here 'twas all of a kind; only about the Pubis the hair was greyish, seemed longer, and somewhat different; so on the upper Lip and Chin, there were greyish hairs like a Beard: And I was told by the Owners, that once it held the Basin it's self, to be trimmed. The Face, Hands, and Soles of the Feet were bare and without Hair, and so was most part of the Forehead: But down the sides of the Face 'twas very hairy; the hairs there being about an Inch and half long, and longer than in most Parts of the Body besides. The tendency of the Hair of all the Body was downwards; but only from the Wrists to the Elbow 'twas upwards; so that at the Elbow the Hair of the Shoulder and the Arm ran contrary to one another. Now in Quadrupeds the Hair in the fore-limbs have usually the same Inclination downwards, and it being here different, it suggested an Argument to me, as if Nature did design it as a Biped. But we will lay no more stress upon it than it will bear: The Hair on the backside of the Hands did run transverse, inclining to the outside of the Hands; and those of the hinder sides of the Thighs were transverse likewise.  
Man, tho' not so hairy as Brutes, and (as Aristotle observes) more hairy before, than behind; yet if exposed to the hardships of the Wether, like them; no doubt, but he would become hairy on the Body likewise; which might possibly be the Case of Nabuchadnezzar. 
(15) Daniel, Cap. 4. 33.  And very Remarkable is that Story of Peter Serrano a Spaniard, who was castaway, and escaped to a Desert Island, which from him afterwards received its Name, as 'tis related by the Inca Garcilasso de la Vega. 
(16) Royal comen 〈◊〉 of Pe●●. lib. 1. cap. 3.  For having with the greatest difficulty sustained a miserable Life for three Years, The Hairs of his Body grew in that manner, that he was covered all over with Bristles; the hair of his Head and Beard reaching to his Waste, that he appeared like some Wild or Savage Creature.  
(e) Arist. Their Face hath Many Resemblances to a Man's, for they have Nostrils and Ears alike; and Teeth like a Man's, both the Foreteeth and the Grinders.  
Pliny 
(17) Natur. Hist. lib. 11. cap. 44. p.m. 593.  seems to have respect to this Text of Aristotle, and what follows, where he tells us, Nam simiarum genera perfectam Hominis imitationem continent, fancy, Naribus, Auribus, Palpebris, quas solae Quadrupedum in inferiore habent Genâ. Jam Mammas in Pectore, Brachia & Crura in contrarium similitèr flexa. In manibus, ungues, digitos, longioremque medium. Pedibus paulùm differunt, sunt enim, ut manus, praelongi, sed vestigium Palmae simile faciunt. Pollex quoque his & Articuli, ut homini; ac praeter Genitale, & hoc in maribus tantùm. Viscera etiam interiora omnia ad exemplar. We will compare both their Accounts, with our pygmy; and observe wherein they agree or differ from us.  
As for the jace of our pygmy, it was liker a Man's, than Ape's and Monkeys Faces are: For it's Forehead was larger, and more globous, and the upper and lower Jaw not so long or prominent, and more spread; and it's Head more than as big again as either of theirs: But why the Philosopher, after his general Assertion of the likeness of the Face of an Ape to that of a Man's, should first of all instance in the Nose, which is so much different, may seem strange: Since in a Man the Nose is protuberant and rising, jutting out much beyond the whole surface, and herein 'tis altogether unlike to that of Brutes, and the Apekind too. 'Tis not therefore on this account that the Comparison is made, But I rather think, his meaning must be, that an Ape's Nose is like Man's, in that it is not extended to the length of the Rostrum, or upper Jaw, as in Dogs and other Brutes, but reaches only to the upper Lip. à simis Naribus, or this flatness of the Nose, most do derive the word Simia; tho' others, as Vossius, would have it, quasi mimia à 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, imitari, from mimicking. But Scaliger will not allow it. Dicitur autem Simia (saith he) non ab Imitatione, ut Grammatici imperiti, sed à simitate.  
The Nose of our pygmy was flat like an Ape's, not protuberant as a Man's; and on the outside of each Nostril there was a little slit turning upwards, as in Apes. 'Tis observed of the Indian Blacks, that their Nose is much flatter than the Europeans; which may be thought rather Natural to that Nation, than occasioned (as some would make us believe) by the Mother's tying the Infant to her Back, and so when at Work bruising and flatting it against her Shoulders; because 'tis so universal in them all.  
As to the Ears, none could more resemble those of a Man, than our Pygmie's; both as to the largeness, colour, shape, and structure. Here I observed the Helix, Ant-Helix, Concha, Alvearium, Tragus, Anti-tragus, and Lobus; only the Cartilege was very fine and thin, and the Ears did not lie so flat to the Head, as they do in a Man. But that may be from the Custom of binding; our Heads, when Infants.  
The Teeth of our pygmy resembled a Man's, more than do those of Apes and Monkeys; as I shall show in the Ostcology.  
(f) Arist. And whereas other Quadrupeds have not Hair on both Eyelids, these have; But 'tis very fine, especially that on the lower Eyelid, and very small. But other Quadrupeds have none there.  
In our pygmy the Cilia or Hair of both Eyelids appeared very fair and plain, but not so large as in Men. The Supercilia or Hair of the Eyebrows, seemed to be rubbed off; which might be occasioned by the jutting out of the Cranium in that place, more than in Men: Which is a Provident Provision of Nature, for the better safeguard of the Eyes, and their defence from the Injuries they might otherwise receive in the Woods. But the Philosopher's Assertion, that no Quadruped hath Hair on the under Eyelid besides Man but the Apekind, I cannot justify; or I do not take his meaning aright: Tho' he has much the same Opinion a little before. 
(18) Hist. Animal. lib. 2. p.m. 161.  Where he tells us, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Which Scaliger thus renders: Ac Palpebras homo utrâque in Genâ habet tum & in Alis, & in Pube Pilos. Caeterae, Animantes neque in his locis, neque in Genâ inferiore: Sed sub Genam & paucos & paucae. Our pygmy had Hair in the Armpits, and that in the Pubis seemed somewhat different from what grew on the rest of the Body; being not so straight, but somewhat curled; and greyish, not black. But I must here Remark, that Pliny uses the words Palpebrae and Gena, in his Translating this Text of Aristotle, different from what commonly they signify now. For by Palpebrae he means, what Aristotle and Hypocrates call 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, i. e. the Hair on the Rim of the Eyelids, à palpitatione; and Festus calls Cilia, quia oculos celent & tueantur: And by Gena, he understands the Eyelid; as appears from that Passage of Pliny I have just now quoted, Palpebris quas folae Quadrupedum in inferiore habent Genâ. And so Scaliger uses these words in this Translation of Aristotle: And he makes Cilium to signify, Summum Genae ambitum, and not the Hair there.  
(g) Arist. They have two Teats or Nipples of small Breasts on the Sternum.  
The Philosopher here observes, That the Apekind, common with Humane, have the Mammae on the Sternum or Breast, which is different from Brutes. And tho' the Elephant herein seems somewhat alike, yet he makes this distinction, 
(19) Arist. ibid. p. 151.  〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Juxta Pectus potius, quam in Pectore, as Scaliger renders it; or as Theodorus Gaza, non in Pectore, sed paulò citra. And a little after, 
(20) Arist. ibid. p. 176.  he more particularly expresses himself, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Sub Armis, as Gaza renders it; ad Axillas, as Scaliger, where he further tells us, That the Male as well as Female Elephant have these Teats; but they are very small, in respect of the Bulk of its Body, and so placed that side-ways, you can't see them. The Bear (he adds) hath four Teats; Sheep have but two, and those between the hinder Legs; Cows have four Teats there. Other Animals (he saith) have these Teats in the middle of the Belly, and usually more numerous; as the Dog and Swine-kind: But the Panther hath but four in the Belly: The Camel hath two Mammae there, and four Teats, as a Cow; and a Lioness but two there.  
But Apes and Monkeys have their Teats upon the Breast, as Women have; and 
(21) Albert. the Animal. lib. 22. p. 224.  Albertus Magnus gives this Reason for it, Mammillas autem habet in Pectore sicut Mulier, eò quòd manus dedit ei Natura, quibus ad Pectus potest elevare partum, sicut Mulier. Our pygmy was a Male, yet here the two Papillae or Teats appeared very plain, and were exactly situated as they are in Men. The Mammae or Breasts were small and thin, and not protuberant. The Female Orang-Outang of 
(22)) Jac. Bontij Hist. Nat. & Med. lib. 5. cap. 32. p. 84.  Bontius is pictured with pendulous large Breasts, and they are so described by 
(23) Nic. Tulpij Observe. Med. l. 3. cap. 56.  Tulpius. And 
(24) Gassend. de vita Peireskij. lib. 5. p.m. 170.  Gassendus, in the Life of Peiresky, speaking of the Barris, saith, Huic Mammae ad pedis longitudinem.  
(h) Arist. They have Arms like a Man, but hairy; and they bend them and the Legs as a Man does; the flection of the one being contrary to the other.  
The Shoulder and Arm of our pygmy were very hairy outwards, not so hairy inwards. The Contratendency of the Hair here, as that of the Shoulder pointing downwards, and that of the Arm pointing upwards, like Lucan's Pila minantia Pilis, I have already noted. This difference I shall here remark of this fore-limb in our pygmy, as well as in Apes and Monkeys; that 'tis longer in them proportionably, than in Man. I shall examine this Part more particularly in the Myology and Osteology.  
But the Curvature or Flection of the Arms and Legs in our pygmy, as also in Apes and Monkeys, is just the same as in Man; the Arms bending forwards, and the Legs backwards; whereas in other Brutes, the flection of the fore and hinder Legs is both the sáme way. Homini Genua & Cubita contraria (saith 
(25) Plinij Nat. Hist. l. 11. cap. 45. p.m. 594.  Pliny) item Vrsis & simiarum generi, ob id minime pernicibus. I shall examine this Place of Pliny in the Osteology.  
ay Arist. Besides they have Hands, Fingers, and Nails like a Man's, but all these somewhat ruder.  
The Hand of our pygmy was different from a Man's, in that the Palm was much longer; so the Thumb too, was less than the other Fingers; whereas in a Man, the Thumb is usually thicker than the rest of the Fingers: In both these respects, it more resembled the Apekind. But the Fingers of our pygmy being so much bigger than those of Apes and Monkeys; and its Nails being broader, and flatter, on both these Accounts it was liker a Man. Vngues Clausulae Nervorum summae existimantur (saith 
(26) Plinij Nat. Hist. lib. 11. cap. 45. P. 594.  Pliny) omnibus high, quibus & digiti: sed Simiae imbricati, Hominibus lati.  
In the Palms of the Hands of our pygmy were remarkable those Lines which are usually taken notice of in Palmistry, and at the ends of the Fingers were those Spiral Lines, which are usually in a Man's.  
(k) Arist. The Feet are particular; for they are like great Hands, and the Toes like Fingers; the middlemost being the longest; And the Sole of the Foot like the Palm of the Hand, but more extended, or longer.  
Pliny (as I have remarked) renders this Passage thus: Pedibus paulum differunt, sunt enim, ut manus, praelongi; sed vestigium Palmae simile faciunt. Now the Palms of the Hands, and the Soles of the Feet of our pygmy, were equally long, and longer, proportionably, than in Man; and herein it resembled more the Apekind: As it did likewise in the length of the Toes, which were as long as the Fingers, as also in having the middlemost Toe longer than the rest. For in the Hand of a Man, the middle Finger is the longest, but in the Foot, the middle Toe is not. The Philosopher does very well liken it to a Hand, since besides the length of the Toes, like Fingers, it had the great Toe, like the Thumb set off at a distance from the range of the other Toes, as we shall show hereafter.  
(l) Arist. The sole of the Foot in the hinder part was more callous, ill, and oddly imitating a Heel: For they use their Feet in both Capacities, both as a Hand and Foot, and bend them like Hands.  
In the Apekind there is a true Os Calcis, besides this Callosity. And in our pygmy this Heel-bone was liker that in a Man, than theirs is. The Philosopher in the former Paragraph showed what resemblance this Part had to a Humane Hand, in this, by reason of the Os Calcis, how 'tis like a Foot; and then makes an Inference from the different structure of this Organ, that it performs the Uses and Offices of both.  
All which is very agreeable to our pygmy. But this Part, in the Formation and its Function too, being liker a Hand, than a Foot; for the distinguishing this sort of Animals from others, I have thought, whether it might not be reckoned and called rather Quadrumanus than Quadrupes, i. e. a four-handed, than a fourfooted Animal.  
And as it uses it's hinder Feet upon any occasion, as Hands; so likewise I observed in our pygmy, that it would make use of its Hands, to supply the place of Feet. But when it went as a Quadruped on all four, 'twas awkwardly; not placing the Palm of the Hand flat to the Ground, but it walked upon its Knuckles, as I observed it to do, when weak, and had not strength enough to support its Body. So that this Species of Animals hath the Advantage of making use of their Feet as Hands, and their Hands as Feet, as there is occasion.  
(m) Arist. The Os Humeri, and the Os Femoris are short, in respect of the Ulna and Tibia.  
In a Humane Skeleton, the Os Humeri, and the Os Femoris are much longer than the Vlna and Tibia. For in a Skeleton of a Woman I have by me, the Os Humeri was Twelve Inches and a half, and the Os Femoris Seventeen Inches long; whereas the Vlna was but Nine Inches and three quarters, and the Tibia Fourteen Inches long. In our pygmy, the Os Humeri was Five Inches and a half, and the Os Femoris Five Inches long. The Vlna was Five Inches and a half, and the Tibia was Four Inches long. These Bones in the Skeleton of a Monkey, were much of the same length with our Pygmie's, so that herein both differ from a Man, and our pygmy more resembles the Apekind.  
(n) Arist. They have no prominent Navel, but something hard in this place of the Navel.  
In our pygmy the Vmbilicus or Navel appeared very fair, and in the exact Place, as 'tis in a Man; not prominent nor harder, but in all respect Natural and alike.  
(o) Arist. They have the upper Parts much larger than the lower, as being Quadrupeds, almost as five to three; and as upon this account, so be because they have Feet like Hands, as if they were compounded of a Hand and Foot: Of a Foot, in respect of the Heel behind; and of a Hand, as to the other Parts; for they have Fingers, and what we call the Palm.  
In Quadrupeds usually the Upper or foreparts are much larger than the Lower or hinder; and 'tis so in the Ape and Monkey-kind, as the Philosopher Remarks. But in our pygmy I think this Observation will not hold. For tho' it was much emaciated, by reason of its long; illness, so that it seemed very thin and lank in the Belly; yet behind it looked square enough, and proportionable as a Man. But the Orang-Outang of Tulpius had a large squob Belly. We shall presently give the Dimensions of all the Parts, as soon as we have done with this Text of Aristotle.  
We shall hereafter farther consider the structure of the Foot in the Osteology, where we shall describe the Os Calcis, and show how well it performs its Office, when this Animal stands erect. But since Nature designed it not always to live on the Ground, but to get its Prey in the Trees likewise, it hath very wisely form this Part like a Hand, by which means it can more easily climb them; and when there, shift much better by this Contrivance; as I have shown in my Discourse 
(27) Philosoph. Transact. Numb. 239.  upon the Carigueya, seu Marsupiale Americanum, or the Anatomy of an Opossum; which Animal had its hinder Feet form like Hands  
(p) Arist. They live most of their time as Quadrupeds more than as Bipeds, or erect.  
Our Merchants tell me, when first they take Apes or Monkeys, to learn them to go erect, they usually tie their Hands behind them. And I am of the Philosopher's Mind, that Naturally they go more on all Four, than erect. But whether 'tis so in our pygmy, I do suspect; since walking on its Knuckles, as our pygmy did, seems no Natural Posture; and 'tis sufficiently provided in all respects to walk erect.  
(q) Arist. As Quadrupeds they have no Buttocks; as Bipeds, no Tails; or but very little, like a show of one.  
Our pygmy had Buttocks or Nates, as we shall see in the Myology, but not so much as in Man. The Os Ischij or Coxendix was very different, as appears in the Skeleton, and as I shall describe in the Osteology. Our pygmy had no Tail, but an Os Coxygis, as is in Man, which outwardly made a little appearance, as in my Second Figure, and may be what Aristotle Remarks. Scaliger has this Note upon it: Caudae notam sive vestigium animadvertit, quam vix Oculis deprehendas. Tactu tamen subesse intelligas, quam si attractare tents, promptâ mirâque celeritate sese subtrahit, ridiculâ indignatione laesum prae se sert.  
(r) Arist. The Female hath the Privy-parts, like a Woman; but the Male, more like a Dog's, than a Man's.  
Our Subject was a Male, and this Part here was nothing like a Dog's. For in the Penis of a Dog there is a large Bone, which is not in the Ape and Monkey-kind. Scaliger's Note here does not make out the Assertion: Caninum Genitale dixit Simij, non temerè; nodos enim quosdam deprehendimus: differt autem figurâ Glandis. I did not observe these Nodes here; but of this, more in the Anatomy of this Part.  
(s) Arist. The Cebi (as was said before) have Tails: As to the Viscera they have them all like a Man's.  
So Pliny, Viscera etiam interiora omnia ad Exemplar. But I find this a great Mistake. For, as we shall show, our pygmy, who comes much nearer to a Man in the Structure of the inward Parts, than either Apes or Monkeys, yet in a great many things is very different; but where it is so, there it resembles an Ape. But on the other hand, Albertus Magnus is much more mistaken, who will not allow any likeness at all. For speaking of an Ape, he tells us, 
(28) Albertus' De Animal. lib. 22. p. 224.  Et sicut in ante habitis diximus, homini in exterioribus simile existens, in nullo similitudinem habet cum interioribus hominis, & minùs fere omnibus aliis Bestiis. Galen 
(29) Galen. de Anat. Admini●l. lib. 1. cap. 2. p.m. 26.  is much more in the right, who acknowledges a very great similitude between an Ape and a Man, both in the outward and inward Parts, where he tells US, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. i e. An Ape is the most like a Man of any Quadruped: In the Viscera and the Muscles, and in the Arteries, and Veins and Nerves, because 'tis so in the structure of the Bones. For 'tis from their make, that it walks on two Legs, and uses its fore-limbs as Hands. It hath the largest Breast of any Quadruped, and Clavicles or Collar-bones like a Man, and a round Face, and a small or short Neck.  
All which is very agreeable to our pygmy, whom we shall sinned more exactly to answer this Character, than an Ape. And now having compared our pygmy with this general Description that Aristotle gives of the Apekind; we shall compare him with himself, by taking the different Dimensions of the several Parts, as well as of the whole Body; and shall observe what Proportions they had to one another.  
As from the top of the Head, to the heel of the Foot in a straight Line, it measured Twenty six Inches. The Girth of the Body in the biggest part about the Cartilago Ensiformis, was Sixteen Inches; over the Loins 'twas Ten Inches about. The Compass of the Head over the Eyes and Ears, Thirteen Inches and a half. The aperture of the Eyelids, three quarters of an Inch. From one corner of the Mouth, to the other, Two Inches and a quarter. From the middle of the upper Lip to the Eyebrow, 'twas two Inches three quarters. From the Eyebrow to the Occiput Seven Inches and a half. The Perpendicular Diameter of the Ear from the Top to the Lobe, was Two Inches and a half. The Horizontal Diameter of the Ear was an Inch and half. The Verge or Compass of the Ear about, was near Five Inches and a half. Where the Ear was fastened to the Head, it measured above an Inch and half. From the Clavicula or Collar-Bone, to the Penis, Ten Inches. From the Cartilago Ensiformis to the Navel, Three Inches and a half. From the Navel to the Penis, Three Inches. The distance between the two Teats, Three Inches and a quarter. The length of the Arm, from the Shoulder to the end of the Fingers, Seventeen Inches. The Girth of the Shoulder about the middle, Four Inches and a quarter; of the Arm near the Elbow, Five Inches. The Hand from the Wrist to the end of the Middle Finger, measured Five Inches and an half. The Thumb was an Inch and a quarter long; the Forefinger Two Inches, the Middle-Finger Two Inches and an half; the Ringfinger Two Inches and a quarter, and the Little Finger One Inch and an half long. The Girth of the Thumb and the Little Finger, was One Inch; the Girth of the other Fingers was an Inch and a quarter. The Palm of the Hand was Three Inches long, and an Inch and three quarters broad.  
From the head of the Thighbone to the Heel, it measured Twelve Inches: From the Heel to the end of the Middle-Toe (which was the longest) Five Inches three quarters. The Girth of the Thigh was Six Inches; of the Leg at the Calf, Four Inches and a quarter; of the Foot at the setting on of the Great Toe, near Five Inches. The Great Toe was an Inch and half long, the Fore-Toe One Inch, the Middle-Toe an Inch and half, the Third Toe an Inch and a quarter, the Little Toe One Inch long. The Sole of the Foot, about the setting on of the Great Toe (where 'twas broadest) was Two Inches over; but nearer the Heel, 'twas an Inch and half broad. The Girth of the Great Toe, where biggest, an Inch and half, the other Toes were an Inch about. These Measures were taken before the Skin was stripped off, in the Skeleton, or the Skin stuffed, they may prove otherwise.  
And having now given these Dimensions of the whole, and of most of the External Parts; you will the better conceive the exact shape of this wonderful Animal by the Figures I have caused to be made of it. As the First Figure represents our pygmy erect, where you have a view of all the Foreparts. Being weak, the better to support him, I have given him a Stick in his Right-Hand. But our Figure being made after he was dead, the Head seems too much fallen in between the Shoulders, as if it had a very shore or little or no Neck, which takes off from the Beauty of the Figure; but this is rectified and mended in the Figure of the Skeleton, where you will see the Neck proportionate. The Head here is large and globous; the Ears standing off, not lying close. The face looks like an Old withered Man's, which without doubt was rendered much more so, by an Ulcer it had in one of its Cheeks, occasioned by a Fall it had on Shipboard upon a Cannon, which forced out one of its Teeth; and the Jawbone afterwards proving carious, it might hasten its Death. The rising of the Cranium just under the Eyelids, as I have ramarked, is different from what is in a Man, and renders the Face harder; as does likewise its flat Nose, and the Upper Jaw being more prominent, and lesser spread, than in a Man; and it's Chin or Under Jaw being shorter. The Eyes were a little sunk, the Mouth large, the Teeth perfectly Humane. The Face was without Hair, and the Colour a little tawny; the Skin on the rest of the Body was white.  
The Shoulders are spread and large, the Thorax or Breast extended altogether like a Man's, the Mammae and Teats the same; the Belly was lank and pinched in, not prominent, by reason of its illness; but here it held a more proportionable breadth to a Man's, than a Quadruped's. The Arms were longer than in a Man, and so were the Palms of the Hands; but the Thumb was much less, the Nails exactly like a Man's, and the Navel the same. The Penis was different, as we shall hereafter show. Here was no Scrotum, but the Testes were contained in the Region of the Pubis under the Skin, which made it here more protuberant. The Thighs and Legs were somewhat divaricated or straddling, for want of strength, either from its illness, or being but young. We observed Calves in its Legs; the Feet long, as likewise the Toes, which were liker Fingers; and the Great Toe exactly like a Thumb, more than that on the Hand.  
The Second Figure represents the hinder Parts of this Creature, in an Erect Posture likewise. Where may be observed, the Globous Figure and largeness of the Head, with the Ears standing off; the curious snape and straitness of the Back, and how it spreads. At the Os Coxygis there is a little Protuberance, but nothing like a Tail.  
In this Figure I have represented him with the Fingers of one Hand bent, as if kneeling upon his Knuckles, to show the Action, when he goes on all four: For the Palms of his Hands never touch the Ground, but when he malks as a Quadruped, 'tis only upon his Knuckles. The other Hand is holding a Rope, to show his Climbing; for he will nimbly run up the Tackle of a Ship, or climb a Tree: And having this hold, he is the better supported, to show the Sole of the left Foot, and the Heel there; on account of which Heel it may be thought a Foot: But the Great Toe being set off so far from the range of the others, and they all being so large and long, it more resembles a Hand, as has been observed.  
If we compare our Figures with those given by Tulpius, Bonlius, and Gesner, we shall find a great difference. That of Tulpius seems the most Natural; but being made sitting, it does not so well represent the Proportions of the several Parts. The Chaps or Rostrum is longer, and 'tis less hairy in the foreparts than ours. The Mammae are larger and pendulous, and the Belly more protuberant, Dapper, 
(30) Dapper Descript. de l' As●iqu. p. m. 365.  in his Description of Africa, has borrowed this Figure from Tulpius, without naming him, as likewise his Description, which is the same. For avoiding the often quoting it, I will here Transcribe Tulpius' Account: But why I think it not a satire, as he and Dapper make it, I will give my Reasons in the following Essay. Tulpius his words are these: 
(31) Observat. Med. lib. 3. cap. 56.   
Quamvis extra forum Medicum, attexam tamen huic telae, Satyrum Indicum; vostrâ memoriâ, ex Angolâ delctum: & Frederico Henrico, Arausionensium Principi, dono datum. Erat autem hic Satyrus quadrupes: sed ab humanâ specie, quam prae se fert, vocatur Indis Orang-Outang: sive homo Sylvestris, uti Africanis Quoias' morrou. Exprimens longitudine puerum trimum; ut crassitie sexennem.  
Corpore erat nec obeso, nec gracili, sed quadrato: habilissimo tamen, ac pernicissimo. Artubus verò tam strictis, & musculis adeò vastis: ut quidvis & anderet, & posset. Anteriùs undique glaber: at ponè hirsutus, ac nigris crinibus obsitus. Fancies mentiebatur hominem: sed nares simae, & aduncae, rugosam, & edentulam anum.  
Aures verò nihil diserepare, ab humanâ formâ. Vti neque pectus; ornatum utrinque mammâ praetumidâ (erat enim fexûs foeminini); venture habebat umbilicum profundiorem; & artus, cum superiores, tum inferiores, tam exactam cum homine similitudinem: ut vix ovum ovo videris similius.  
Nec cubito defuit requisita commissura: nec manibus digitorum ordo: nedum pollici figura humana: vel cruribus furae: vel pedi calcis fulcrum. Quae concinna, ac decens membrorum forma, in caussâ fuit, quod multoties incederet erectus: neque attolleret minùs gravatè, quam transferret facilè, qualecunque, gravissimi oneris, pondus.  
Bibiturus prehendebat canthari ansam, manu alterâ; alteram verò vasis fundo supponens, abstergebat deinde madorem labiis relictum, non minùs adposit, ac si delicatissimum vidisses aulicum. Quam eandem dexteritatem observabat utique cubitum iturus. Inclinans quippe caput in pulvinar, & corpus stragulis convenientèr operiens, velabat se haud alitèr, ac si vel mollissimus illic decubuisset homo.  
Quin imò narravit aliquandò affini nostro, Samueli Blomartio, Rex Sambacensis, Satyros hosce, praesertim mares, in Insulâ Bornaeo, tantam habere animi considentiam, & tam validam musculorum compagem: ut non semel impetum fecerint, in viros armatos: nedùm in imbellem, foeminarum, puellarumve, sexum.  
Quarum interdùm tàm ardenti flagrant desiderio: ut raptas non semel constuprarint. Summè quippe in venerem sunt proclives (quod ipsis, cum libidinosis veterum Satyris commune) imò interdùm adeò protervi, ac salaces: ut mulieres Indicae, proptereà vitent, cane pejus & angue, saltus, ac lnstra, in quibus delitescunt impudica haec animalia.  
Dapper, who hath transcribed this Account of Tulpius, (as I said) but without taking any notice of him, makes this Preface to it. The Quoias' Morrou (of which I have spoken in the Kingdom of Quoia) are bred likewise in the Kingdom of Angola. This Animal, as it hath a great deal of a Man, so a great many have thought it to be the Issue of a Man and an Ape: But the Blacks themselves reject this Opinion. Now in the Place that Dapper refers to, he seems to give it as the Opinion of the Blacks, that they are the Issue of Men; but that by their always living in the Woods, they are become half-Beasts. I shall transcribe his Words, and so have done with him: 
(32) Dapper ibid. p.m. 257.  On trouve dans les bois une Espece de Satyre que les Negroes appellent Quoias-Morrou, & les Portugais, Savage. Ils ont la ête gross, le Corps gros et peasant, les bras nerveux, ils n'ont point de queve, et Marchent tantót tout droit, et tantót à quatre pieds. Les Animaux se nourrissent de fruits et de Miel Sauvage, & se battent à tout moment ies uns contre les autres. Ils sont issu des Hommes, à ce disent les Negro, mais ils sont devenus ainsi demi-bêtes en se tenant toûjours dans les Forêts. On dit qu'ils forcent les femmes & les filles, & qu'ils ont le courage d' attaquer des Hommes armez.  
We will now examine Jacobus Bontius' Figure, and compare it with ours: And tho' he tells us, that he had seen some of both Sexes that went erect, especially that Female one, whose Effigies he here gives us; yet I can't but think, he indulged more his Fancy herein, than copied the true Life; or at least it was much different from ours. For ours had no such long Hair on the Head, and all round the Face; the Face of our pygmy was not so flat and round, nor the Nose and Underlip so rising: The large Breasts in his, answers the Description which is given of it by others; ours being a Male, had but small ones. But the Arms in our pygmy (as'tis in the Apekind) were much longer than they are represented in his Figure, and the Feet are altogether different; for he makes them exactly like Humane Feet, and nothing like Hands, which is so Remarkable a thing in all these Animals, that this Mistake of itself, is enough to discountenance the Truth of his Picture, and render it suspected. I shall not take notice, how ill the Hair is drawn, nor make any further Remarks upon the structure of the Limbs, since I confess I do mistrust the whole Representation. But because he hath expressed, that this Creature had so much Modesty, I have added to his Figure what becomes that Character.  
That Figure in Conradus Gesner, 
(33) Hist. de Quadruped. p.m. 859.  which he tells us he had out of a Germane Book, wrote about the Holy Land, in some Particulars I think more exact and just: For here he makes the Feet like Hands, the Legs more divaricated, the Face longer, and the Rostrum more extended. But the Arms are too short, and I do not know for what reason there is a Tail clap't on, which sits untowardly enough, which must be surely an Addition of the Painter; or if there is any such Creature in Nature, it must be of another Family, different from ours.  
However, I have caused all these Figures to be copied, that they may be the easier compared: But since they are so disagreeing, as are likewise the Descriptions they give of them, it sufficiently justifies my Complaint of the uncertainty we have of the true Animal, that they are discoursing about; since the same Name probably may be given to different Species of the Apekind. Now Orang-Outang, or Homo Sylvestris, or the Wild Man, being a General Name, I have given it also to our Subject: Tho' I confess I am not fully satisfied whether it be exactly the same with that of Tulpius or Bontius; or even whether that of Bontius be the same with that of Tulpius. For Bontius his Account is so very imperfect, that from thence one cannot make a safe Conclusion; and I rather suspect the contrary: For Bontius describes it with soft, tender Passions; Tulpius and Dapper make it Warlike and Fight. Bontious's words are these: 
(34) Jac. Bontji, Hist, Nat. & Med. lib. 5. cap. 32.  Ast quod majorem meretur admirationem, vidi ego aliquot utriusque sexûs erectè incedentes, imprimis eam (cujus Effigiem hic exhibeo) Satyram femellam, tanta verecundia ab ignotis sibi hominibus occulentem, tum quoque faciem manibus (liceat ità dicere) tegentem ubertimque lachrymantem, gemitus cientem, & caetcros humanos actus exprimentem, ut nihil ei humani deesse diceres, praeter loquelam. Loqui verò eos easque posse, Javani aiunt, sed non velle, nè ad labores cogerentur: ridicule mehercules. Nomen ei indunt Ourang Outang, quod Hominem Sylvae significat, cosque nasci affirmant è Libidine Mulierum Indarum, quae se Simiis & Cercopithecis detestandâ libidine miscent: Nec pueri credunt, nisi qui nondum aere lavantur.  
And then adds, that in Borneo there are these Wild Men, and with Tails, but much shorter than that pictured in Gesner. Porrò in Insulâ Borneo (saith Bontius) in Regno Succodana dicto, à nostris Mercatoribus propter Oryzam & Adamantes frequentato, Homines montani Caudati in interioribus Regni inveniuntur, quos multi è nostris in Aulâ Regis Succodanae viderent. Cauda autem illis est prominentia quaedam ossis Coccygos, ad quatuor, aut paulò ampliùs, digitos excrescens, eodem modo, quo truncata cauda (quos nos Spligiones vocamus) sed depilis.  
'Tis for this Reason therefore, that I might more particularly distinguish our Animal, that I have called it a pygmy; a Name that was formerly given to a sort of Ape, as I shall prove. But the Poets and Historians too of former Ages have invented so many improbable Stories about them, that they have rendered the whole History concerning them ridiculous, and not to be believed. We shall therefore endeavour to distinguish the Truth from the Fables in the following Essay.  
The Barisor Barrislikewise seems to be an Ourang Outang, or a Wild Man; but whether exactly the same with ours, I will not determine, but leave to farther Enquiry. For all the Accounts concerning it that I have at present met with, relate rather its Docility and Actions, and the Servile Offices 'tis capable of performing in a Family, than any thing particular as to the Description of the Body; only in general that 'tis an Ape like a Man. Thus Peter Gassendus 
(35) Lib. 5. p.m. 71.  in the Life of Peiresky tells us, that in Java Major were observed by the Sieur de Saint-Amant, Animalia quae forent Naturae homines inter & simias mediae; which being doubted of, Peireskyproduced a Letter from Natalis or Noël, a Physician who lived in Africa, which gave him this Account. Esse in Guineâ Simias, barbâ procerâ, canâque, & pexâ propemodùm venerabileis, incedere ipsos lentè, ac videri sibi prae caeteris sapere: qui maximi sunt, & Barris dicuntur, pollere maximè judicio; semel duntaxat quidpiam docendos; veste indutos illicò bipedes incedere; scitè ludere fistulâ, Citharâ, aliisque id genus (nam quod everrant domum, convertant veru, pinsant in mortario, aliaque ratione famulatum praestant, haud reputari admodum) foeminas denique in iis pati menstrua, & mares mulierum esse appetentissimos. He likewise produced other Letters from Arcosius or d' Arcos, which related what happened to one of Ferraria when he was at Angola, the Country from whence our Animal, as likewise that of Tulpius came. I will give it in Gassendus' words: Incidit nempè quâdam die in Nigritam Canibus venantem Homines ut visum, Sylvestreis'. Capto, caesoque i●orum uno, inhumanitatem Nigritae increpuit, qui in suum genus ità saeviret. Ille verò, falleris, inquit, nam hic non est homo, sed bellua homini persimilis, Quip solâ pascitur herbâ, intestinaque Ovina habet, quod ut credas meliùs, rem ecce; simulque abdomen aperuit. Sequenti die rursus venatum, captique mas & foemina: huic Mammae ad pedis longitudinem: caeterà mulieri simillima fuit; nisi quod Intestina quoque herbis oppleta, & cujusmodi Ovis, habuit. Totum utique pilosum Corpus, sed pilo brevi, ac satis leni.  
Our Animal was not so bearded, as that of Natalis; and what Arcosius relates of his Wild Man, or Barris; as it's feeding upon Grass, and having its Intestines like a Sheep's, all this is far different from ours; tho' as to its docility and capacity of performing those Actions mentioned, I can't but think our Subject might easily have been taught to do them; and, it may be, others too of the Apekind, tho' different: As there are wonderful Instances of this kind given of them by Nierembergius 
(36) Hist. Nat. lib. 9 cap. 44.  and others. Dapper's 
(37) Dapper Descript. de● A●●ue. p. 249.  Description is much the same. There is a sort of Ape (saith he) called Baris, which they take when young, and breed them up, and make them so tame, that they will do almost all the Work of a Slave: For they go ordinarily upright as Men do; they will beat Rice in a Mortar, carry Water in a Pitcher, and show such pretty Actions of Address, that they extremely divert their Masters. And in Nierembergius 
(38) Hist. Nat. l. 9 cap. 45.  there is much the same Account. In Guineâ scribit P. Jarricus existere Simias, quae instar famuli in Pilâ tundant quaecunque in eam imponuntur, quae aquam à fluviis in Hydriis capite domùm deferant, ità tamen ut ubi primùm domûs fores attigerint, illicò Hydriis exonerandae sint, alioqui eas excidere, casuque isto frangi, atque tùm clamoribus ac fletu compleri universa. Neque ista modo, sed plurima item alia obire de domesticis ministeriis dicuntur hi Simij Baris. Torosi sunt & robusti.  
But all this does not sufficiently inform us of the particular shape, structure, and make of the Body and the several Parts of this Animal, so as to be fully certain whether it be the same, or a different-Creature from the Ourang-Outang. And tho' I have mentioned it, as a Conjecture that probably the Baris might be, what we call a Drill, yet I own it as an uncertainty, since I have not met with what can justify, or fully satisfy me herein.  
The Pongo likewise which is described by Purchas, as a sort of Wild Man, is different from our Subject; as it may be also from the rest hitherto mentioned. The Reason, therefore, why I insert the Description of this, as likewise of the others, I own to be, that hereby I might excite some Inquisitive Observers to give us a truer Account of this large and noble Species of Animals. 'Tis an Enquiry that would recompense their Curiosity with abundance of Satisfaction, by the many and useful Discoveries that they would make, and extremely enrich the Natural History of Animals, whose enlargement, I think, in this Inquisitive Age, hath not advanced so much as that of Botanie. For how great Diligence hath been used of late, to ransack both the Indies, to pry into all the Corners of the World, both inhabited, and uninhabited, to find out a new Plant, not before described? And with what great Expense, and how magnificently are their Figures Printed? And how little hath been done in the Improvement of the History of Animals? Not that I any ways dislike the former, but the latter being a Nobler Subject, I can't but recommend it, as deserving the Labours of the Curious likewise; and if any, this kind, I think, which comes so near to a Man, may be speak the preference.  
But I beg the Reader's Pardon for this Digression. Purchas' 
(39) Purchas Pilgrims, Part. 2. l. 7, cap. 3. §. 7.  words are these: This Pongo is in all Proportions like a Man, but that he is more like a Giant-Creature, than a Man: For he is very tall, and hath a Man's Face, hollow-eyed, with long Hair upon his brows. His Face and Ears are without Hair and his Hands also. His Body is full of Hair, but not very thick, and it is of a dunnish colour. He differeth not from a Man, but in his Legs, for he hath no Calf. He goeth always on his Legs, and carries his Hands clasped on the Nape of his Neck, when he goeth upon the Ground. They sleep in the Trees, and build shelters for the Rain. They feed upon Fruits that they find in the Woods, and upon Nuts; for they eat no kind of Flesh. They cannot speak, and have no Understanding, no more than a Beast. The People of the Country, when they Travel in the Woods, make Fires, where they sleep in the Night: And in the Morning when they are gone, the Pongoes will come and sit about the Fire, till it goeth out; for they have no Understanding to lay the Wood together. They go many together, and kill many Negroes that Travel in the Woods. Many times they fall upon Elephants, which come to feed where they be, and so beat them with their clubbed Fists, and pieces of Wood, that they will run away roaring from them. These Pongoes are never taken alive, because they are so strong, that Ten Men cannot hold one of them: But yet they take many of their Young Ones with poisoned Arrows. The Young Pongo hangeth on his Mother; s Belly, with his Hands fast clasped about her; so that when any of the Country People kill any of the Females, they take the Young one which hangeth fast upon his Mother. When they die among themselves, they cover the Dead with great heaps of Boughs and Wood, which is commonly found in the Forests.  
Our pygmy had Calves in his Legs, tho' not large, being emaciated; and it being young, I am uncertain to what height in time it might have grown; tho' I cannot think to the just Stature (if there be any such) of a Man. For different Nations extremely vary herein, and even those of the same. Nor did our pygmy seem so dull a Creature as these Pongoes, but on the contrary, very apprehensive, tho' nothing so robust and strong as they are represented to be.  
I shall only further add what le Compte, a Modern Writer, tells us of the Savage Man, and so I think I shall have done: For this Argument is so Fruitful, that one does not know when to conclude . 
(40) Pag. m. 510.  Lewis le Compte therefore in his Memoirs and Observations upon China, tells us, That what is to be seen in the Isle of Borneo , is yet more Remarkable, and surpasseth all that ever the History of Animals hath hitherio related to be the most admirable, the People of the Country assure us, as a thing notoriously known to be true: That they find in the Woods a sort of Beast, called the Savage Man; whose Shape, Stature, Countenance, Arms, Legs, and other Members of the Body, are so like ours, that excepting the Voice only, on's should have much ado not to reckon them equally Men with certain Barbarians in Africa, who do not much differ from Beasts.  
This Wild or Savage Man, of whom I speak, is endued with extraordinary strength, and notwithstanding he walks but upon two Legs; yet is he so swift of Foot, that they have much ado to outrun him. People of Quality Course him, as we do Stags here, and this sort of Hunting is the King's usual Divertisement. His Skin is all hairy, his Eyes sunk in his Head, a stern Countenance, tanned Face; but all his Lineaments are pretty proportionable, although harsh, and thickened by the Sun. I learned all these Particulars from one of our French Merchants, who hath remained some time upon the Island. Nevertheless, I do not believe a Man ought to give much Credit to such sort of Relations, neither must we altogether reject them as fabulous; but wait till the unanimous Testimonies of several Travellers may more particularly acquaint us with the Truth of it.  
Passing upon a time from China to the Coast of Coramandel, I did myself see in the Straits of Molucca a kind of Ape, that might make pretty credible that which I just now related concerning the Savage Man.  
It marches naturally upon its two hind Feet, which it bends a little, like a Dog's, that hath been taught to Dance, it makes use of its two Arms as we do; it's Visage is in a manner as well favoured, as theirs of the Cape of Good Hope; but the Body is all covered with a white, black, or grey Wool: As to the rest, it cries exactly like a Child; the whole outward Action is so Humane, and the Passions so lively and significant, that dumb Men can scarce express better their Conceptions and Appetites. They do especially appear to be of a very kind Nature; and to show their Affections to Persons they know and love, they embrace them, and kiss them with transports that surprise a Man. They have also a certain motion, that we meet not with in any Beast, very proper to Children, that is, to make a noise with their Feet, for joy or spite, when one gives, or refuses them what they passionately long for.  
Although they be very big, (for that I saw was at least four Foot high) their nimbleness and slight is incredible; it is Pleasure beyond expression to see them run up the Tackling of a Ship, where they sometimes play, as if they had a particular knack of Vaulting to themselves, or as if they had been paid, like our Rope-Dancers, to divert the Company.  
Sometimes suspended by one Arm, they poise themselves for some time negligently to try themselves, and then turn, all on the sudden, round about a Rope, with as much quickness as a Wheel, or a Sling that is once put in motion; sometimes holding the Rope successively with their long Fingers, and living their whole Body fall into the Air, they run full speed from one to the other, and come back again with the same swiftness. There is no Posture but they imitate, nor Motion but they perform; bending themselves like a Row, rolling like a Bowl, hanging by the Hands, Feet, and Teeth, according to the different Fancies which their whimsical Imagination supplies them with, which they Act in the most diverting manner imaginable; but their Agility to sting themselves from one Rope to another, at Thirty and Fifty Foot distance, is yet more surprising.  
In this Character there are several things I could take notice of, and I may hereafter have occasion to refer to some of the Particulars; But what is mentioned of its Cry, like a Child's; and it's expressing the Passions of Joy and Grief, by making a Noise with its Feet, is agreeable enough to the Relation I had of our pygmy: For I heard it Cry myself like a Child; and he hath been often seen to kick with his Feet, as Children do, when either he was pleased or angered.  
We shall now proceed to the Anatomy, which in a History of Animals, is certainly the most Necessary, most Significant, and Instructive Part. Nor can I see, how an History of Animals can be well wrote without giving the Dissection of the Inward Parts: 'Tis as if one should undertake to describe a Watch, and at the same time, take notice only of the Case or Cover, and tell what fine Garniture there is about it; but inform us nothing of the admirable Contrivances of the Wheels and Springs within, which gives it Life and Motion. Galen 
(41) De Anat. Administr. lib. 1. cap. 2. p. m. 27. z  thought the Dissection of Apes very useful for the understanding the Structure of the Parts in Humane Bodies; and recommends it to his Scholars to Practice themselves herein. Not that he only dissected Apes, (as Vesalius oftentimes charges him with) or preferred it before the Dissection of Humane Body: But where that could not be had, he advises them to get Apes, and dissect them; especially those that come nearest to a Man. Had he known our pygmy, no doubt but he would have preferred it, for this purpose, as much beyond the Ape, as he does the Ape beyond the Cynoceph●●●●, and all other Animals. For, as we shall observe, there is no 〈◊〉, I have hitherto met with, or heard of, that so exactly rese●●●●● Man, in the Structure of the Inward Parts, as our pygmy: But w●●●●●t differs, (as I have remarked) there it resembles an Ape; being different both from a Man and an Ape: And in many things agreeing with both of them.  
The Skin of the whole Body of our pygmy was whitish; but that on the Head was tawny, and of a darker colour. 'Twas thin, but strong, and adhered pretty firmly, and more than usually to the Flesh; it's greatest adhaesion was at the Linea alba, and in the Palms of the Hands, and the Soles of the Feet, and in the Fingers and Toes; as it is in Men. In the Skin of the Armpits, I observed those Glandulae Cutaneae Axillares, which secret that Orange-coloured Liquor, which in some Men stains the Shift here, with that colour. I call them Cutaneae, to distinguish them from those larger Glands, that lie bedded under in the Fat, and are called Glandulae Axillares. For these I have observed to be Lymphatic Glands; and have traced the Lymphducts thence to the head of the Ductus Thoracicus, where they empty themselves.  
Together with the Skin, we took off the Mammae or Breasts, which stuck close to it: And in our Subject, being a Male, they were but small and thin; yet I could plainly perceive they were made up of abundance of small Glands. I have already mentioned, how large the Breasts are in the Female Orang-Outang, and the Baris, so that no Woman's are larger. As to their Situation, and their being placed upon the Pectoral Muscles, this I find is common to the Apekind: And they are so described by the Parisians 
(42) Memoirs for a Natural History of Animals, p. 162, etc. English Translation.  in the Monkeys they dissected; as also in the Apes dissected by Drelincourt: 
(43) Apud Ger. Bla●●, An●●. Animal. cap. 33. pag. 109, etc.  And because I shall have frequent occasion of referring to these Authors, unless I signify otherwise, I shall always mean the Places here quoted, without mentioning them any more.  
In Brutes, next under the Skin, lies a Musculous Membrane, which therefore is called Panniculus Carnosus, which gives a motion to it, whereby they can shove off what offends them. In Man 'tis otherwise; for next to the Skin, lies the Membrana Adiposa; or the Fat, and under that, the Membrana Carnosa: And the same I observed in our pygmy; for the Fat here lay next to the Skin. Drelincourt, in the Apes he dissected, observed the Panniculus Carnosus next to the Skin, as 'tis in Brutes. For in the Male Ape, he tells us, Adeps nullus inter Panniculum Carnosum & Cutim; and in the Female, Panniculus Carnosus cuti cohaerens, nullo adipe interjecto, Adiposus nullus. So that in this Particular, our pygmy is like to a Man, and different from the Apekind.  
Having separated the Skin and Membrana Adiposa, which in our Subject was not very thick, it being emaciated by its illness, we come now to the Muscles. But I shall reserve myself to treat of them in the Myology. Next under the Muscles was the Peritonaeum, a Common Membrane, that lines all the inside of the Abdomen, and sends a common outward Membrane to all the Viscera contained therein, and so secures their Situation. In this Membrane in Quadrupeds there is in the Groin of each side, a Perforation, or rather a Processus, by which the Seminal Vessels pass down to the Testes in the Scrotum, as is very plain in Dogs and other Animals. But in Man, whose Posture is erect, 'tis otherwise. For here these Vessels pass between the two Coats, that make up this Membrane, the Peritonaeum; so that the inward Coat, that respects the Cavity of the Abdomen, is altogether entire, and continued, and 'tis only the outward Coat that is protruded into this Process; and this for a very good Reason. For otherwise, a Man, whose Posture is erect, would be constantly liable to an Hernia, or a Rupture; which happens when this inward Coat is protruded down likewise; and if there be a descent of the Intestines, 'tis then called Entero-cele: If of the Omentum, Epiploocele. In our pygmy I observed the Peritonaeum, in this respect, to be form exactly as 'tis in Man; and to be entire, and not protruded; as if Nature did design it to go erect. In Apes and Monkeys 'tis otherwise. So Blasius 
(44) Ger. Blasij Miscellan. Anat. Hominis Brutorumque variorum, etc. in Octa●●. p. m 253.  observed in the Ape he dissected, Processus Peritonaei (saith he) eodem modo hic se habet, ac in Cane. Datur & hic facilis via stylo ex ventre in Processum dictum inserendo. And the Parisians have remarked the same in the Monkeys they dissected, which is a notable difference of our Pygmie's from the Apekind, and an agreement with the Humane. Hereafter, whenever I mention Blasius, unless I specify otherwise, be pleased to take notice, that I refer to this Quotation.  
The Omentum or Caul in our pygmy was very thin and large, falling over and covering most parts of the Guts. 'Twas fastened a Little to the Peritonaeum in the Left Side. It had but little Fat, and was tinged in many places with a deep Yellow Colour, by the Bladder of the Gall, as was likewise part of the Duodenum. It had numerous Blood-Vessels, and its adhaesion to the Stomach, Colon, and other Parts, as in Man. The Remarks the Parisians make upon the Epiploon or Omentum of the Monkeys they dissected, were different from our Subject. For they tell us, That the Epiploon was different from that of a Man, in several things. First, It was not fastened to the Colon in so many places, having no connexion with the left part of this Intestine. Ours I found was fastened just as 'tis in Man. Secondly, It had another Ligature, which is not found in Man, viz. to the Muscles of the Abdomen, by means of the Peritonaeum, which form a Ligament; which we have observed in the Hind of Canada. Ours adhered to the Left side: Drelincourt observed it in an Ape, to be fastened to the Right Side. Both I believe to be accidental, as I have frequently seen it in Humane Bodies. And in one Patient I found it fixed to the Peritonaeum in the Groin, which gave him a great deal of Pain and Trouble, especially when his Bowels were any thing extended with Wind. Thirdly, The Parisians say, The Vessels of the Epiploon, which in Man proceed only from the Vena Porta, did nevertheless In one of our Subjects come from the Cava, having there one of the Branches of the Hypogastrica, which was united to the Branches of the Porta. In our Animal these Vessels came all from the Porta, or rather emptied themselves into it. But they observing it only in one Subject, and it being different in all other Animals, it must be accidental. Fourthly, In fine, the whole Epiploon was without Comparison greater than it generally is in Man; because, that it did not only cover all the Intestines, which is rarely seen in Man, (whatever Galen says) but it even enveloped them underneath, as it does in several other Brutes; where it is frequently seen, that the Epiploon is larger than in Man, especially in Animals that do run, and leap with a great deal of Agility: As if it were so redoubled under the Inley ●ward● to defend them, with the rest of the Bowels, against the rude jolts which these Parts do receive in running. It is true, that the Membranes of the Epiploon were entire and continued, as in Man, and not perforated like a Net, as they are in the generality of Brutes. The Epiploon or Caul in our pygmy was very large, yet I have seen the same frequently in Humane Bodies; but when they are diseased, 'tis often less and wasted; so that Galen's Observation may be true. But methinks the Reason they give, why it should be so large in Brutes, may be doubted of; for it being so tender a Part, it would be in danger, upon those violent motions, of being broken, had not Nature made it lose below, and free from any adhaesion; and it being so, it cannot perform the Office they assign it. Drelincourt's Account of the Epiploon, as he observed it in the Female Ape, I like better. Epiploon macrum (saith he) vasis turgidis involvens Intestina omnia, usque ad pubem, adhaerens Extremo Hypochondrio dextro, quâ parte Colon substratum jecoris limbis. Idem adhaeret ventriculi fundo & Colo, ut in homine. And in the Male Ape he dissected 'twas tinged yellow, as ours was.  
We shall proceed now to the Ductus Alimentalis, at least those parts of it that are contained in the Abdomen, viz. the Stomach and Intestines; which I make to be the true Characterisk of an Animal, and a Proprium quarto modo. For all Animals have these Parts; and all that have them, are Animals. The Senses, or some of them, are wanting in a great many Animals, and in some we perceive none but that Universal one, Tactus, yet here we find a Ventricle and Intestines. By these Parts 'tis, that the Animal Kingdom is principally distinguished both from the Vegetable and Angelic. Vegetables, 'tis true, receive constantly Nourishment, and without it, they perish and decay; but 'tis in a far different manner; 'tis not received into such an Organic Body, where the Food is prepared and digested, and so the Nutritive parts thereof dispensed afterwards into all the Body, and the rest ejected, as Excrementitious; this is only to be met with in Animals, and in all of them. But yet I find there are intermediate Species of Being's between Vegetables and Animals, as the Zoophyta: the History of which I could extremely desire might be given us; and can't but think that regularly in compiling a History of Animals, one should commence from them; and amongst these, no doubt, but that there are several degrees of Perfection, till we come to what might be properly called an Animal. I have had no Opportunity of observing any of them, but only one; wherein I could perceive a sensible Motion and Contraction of some of the Parts, but could not distinguish any thing like the Structure of any of the Parts in an Animal, or the Organs that belong to them. An Accident disappointed me of perfecting my Observations, otherwise I should have communicated what I had discovered. But am sensible that there are great Curiosities here to be met with, if diligently enquired into; and that they might be, was the occasion of this Digression.  
This Canalis Alimentalis therefore, or Inductory Vessel (as I call it, for the Reasons I have often mentioned in my Anatomical Lectures at Surgeon's Hall) is commonly distingished into three Parts; The Gula, the Ventricle, and Intestines: The two latter do lie in the Cavity of the Abdomen, the former, in the Thorax and Neck; but being but one continued Canalis, I shall treat of the whole here.  
The Gula or Gullet, by 
(45) M. T. Cicero de Nat. Deorum, lib. 2. §. 54. p. m. 42.  Tully (in that excellent Anatomical Lecture he gives us, where he is proving a Providence) is called Stomachus. As 'tis also by Celsus 
(46) Cornel. Celsus, de re Med. lib. 4. cap. 1.  so likewise in A. Gellius, 
(47) A. Gellij. Noct. Attic. lib. 17. cap. 11.  and frequently by Hypocrates. 
(48) Fid. Anut. Foesii Occonom. Hi●p. in verb●.  And Aristotle 
(49) Arist. Hist. An●m. lib. 1. cap. 10. §. 108. p. m. 89. & ●assim ●lit.  and Galen 
(50) Galen de licis assectis. lib. 5. cap. 5. p.m. 490.  expressly tell us, that that Part between the Fauces and the Ventricle, which the Ancients called Oesophagus, after Aristotle's time, was wont to be called Stomachus, tho' now this word is more appropriated to the Ventricle itself, which Tully in the same place calls Alvus. So true is that of Horace, 

(51) Horace de Arts Poetic. vers. 60.  Vt Sylvae foliis pronos mutantur in annos  
Prima cadunt: it a verborum vetus interit aet●s.  However I shall follow Horace's Rule, since Custom now hath appropriated the word Stomach, to the Ventricle, especially our English Tongue, I shall do so too. 
Multa renascentur, quae jam cecidere: cadentque  
Quae nunc sunt in honore vocabula: si volet usus:  
Quem penes arbitrium est, & vis & norma loquendi. 
(52) Horace. Ibid. ●. ●●.    
This Gula or Gullet is a Hollow Muscle, and fitly enough compared to a Funnel; where the Mouth, which may be thought a Part belonging to it, being more capacious, first receives the Food, and prepares it, by chewing, and then forces it down into this Stem or Pipe, to convey it to the Ventricle. I did not observe, upon the Dissection, any difference of this Part in our pygmy, from that of a Man. For as in a Man, (and so conformable too in other Circumstances) it passed under the lower Muscle of the Diaphragm, which by that slant running of its fleshy Fibres over it, may perform to it the Office of a Valve, and prevent the Regurgitation of the Food that way. Which may be the more necessary in our Subject, because being used to climb Trees, and in coming down, to be prono Capite, it might be the more liable to this Accident. But for the better preventing this, I find here, that the Passage of the Gula, a little above where it empties itself into the Ventricle, was straighter, and the inward Membrane here more rugous than in a Man; so that it seemed somewhat Analogous to a Valve. Drelincourt describes it, in the Female Ape he diffected, thus. Orificium ejus superius, nullâ Valvulâ clausum; sed interceptum duplici portione Diaphragmatis carnosâ, ab ejus tendinibus oriundâ.  
The Ventricle or Stomach, as we shall call this Part, in our pygmy, as to its Situation and Figure, exactly represented a Humane Stomach. When inflated, from the entrance of the Gula along the upper part to the Pylorus, it measured Two Inches and three quarters. Measuring with a Thread from the Pylorus along under the Fundus, up again to the entrance of the Gula, I found it to be Fifteen Inches; in all, near Eighteen Inches. The length of the Stomach in a straight Line, was Six Inches and an half; and it's breadth in a straight Line, where broadest, near Four Inches. The Girth of the Stomach in the middle, was near Twelve Inches. So that I thought the Stomach large, in Proportion to the bulk of the Body. It had numerous Blood-Vessels, spreading themselves all over, as in a Man's; and I could plainly perceive the Inosculations of large Trunks of the Coronary Branches, with those that descended from the upper Parts.  
The Parisians observed in their Monkeys, That the Ventricle did likewise differ from a Man's, it's inferior Orifice being very large and low; for it was not elevated so high as the superior, as it is in a Man. I did not observe this in our pygmy. So Drelincourt tells us in the Female Ape, Ventriculus rugis interiùs nullis gaudet; and some other Particulars he takes notice of. But there was nothing in ours, that I observed, different from a Man's.  
As to their Food, I find it very different in the Apekind; as in part appears by what I have already mentioned of the Ourang Outang, the Baris, the Pongo, etc. So that I can't but think, (like a Man) that they are omnivorous. What chiefly our pygmy affected, when Wild, I was not informed of; after it was taken, and made tame, it would readily eat any thing that was brought to the Table; and very orderly bring its Plate thither, to receive what they would give him. Once it was made Drunk with Punch, (and they are fond enough of strong Liquors) But it was observed, that after that time, it would never drink above one Cup, and refused the offer of more than what he found agreed with him. Thus we see Instinct of Nature teaches Brutus' Temperance; and Intemperance is a Crime not only against the Laws of Morality, but of Nature too.  
Jacobus Bontius 
(53) Jac. B●ntii. Hst. N. ●. & Md. lib. 4. in Animada. in Garciae ab Orto, Cap. 45. p.m. 48.  tells us, that the Bezoar-stone is bred in the Stomaches of Apes, as well as Goats, and he prefers it as the best. Porrò vidi (saith he) & Lapides Pazahar natos in ventriculis Simiorum, qui teretes sunt & longitudinem digiti aliquandò excedunt, qui praestantissimi omnium censentur. Pazahar, he tells us a little before, signifies in the Persian, contra venewm, whence may come the word Bezoar. Joh. Georg. Volchamerus 
(54) Mi●cell. Curi●●a German. De 〈…〉 an. 1583. ●●erv. 189. p. 420.  takes notice of one he had from Grimmius out of the Baboon-kind, as big as a Walnut. And in the Scholium on that Observation, Joh. Bapt. Tavernier's 
(55) Jo. Bapt. Tavern. lib. 2. etin. Indic. c. p.24.  Travels are quoted, where he prefers two Grains of this, before six of the Goat-Bezoar. Tho' Philip. Baldaeus, in his Description of Malabar and Cormandel, does esteem it much cheaper, Casper Bauhinus hath wrote a distinct Treatise of the Bezoar-stone, to whom I refer my Reader; and shall only farther observe of it, that I think this Medicine ought not to be despised, because in Health a Man may take a large Quantity of it, without any Injury; for I have evidently seen in the greatest Weaknesses, most Remarkable Effects from it, and have had Success beyond expectation; it supporting the Spirits, and relieving them, where a more active Medicine might overpower them, and yet not have done that Service.  
But this Stone in Goats and Monkeys is a Disease, and not Natural; as well as the Stone in the Bladder or Kidneys of a Man. Bontius 
(56) Bontius 〈◊〉 in c.p. 46. p.m. ●8.  therefore observing the good Effects of the Bezoar-stones bred in these Animals, argues with himself, why those in Men, which he finds laminated in the same manner, might not be of as great an Efficacy; and upon Trial, he assures us, that they are so. Hoc ceriè compertum habeo, Lapidem in vesicâ hominis repertum, urinam & sudores probe ciere, quod tempore ingentis illius pestis quae Anno 1624. & 1625. Leydam, Patriam means & reliquas Hollandiae Civitates, miserandum in modum vastabat, in penuriâ Lapidis Basaartici, nos exhibuisse memini, & Sudorificum (ausim dicere) melius & excellentius invenisse, cum admixtâ Theriacâ aut Mithridatio, cum Olco Succini aut Juniperi guttis aliquot.  
We come now to the Third Stage of the Ductus Alimentalis, the Intestines; which serve for the separating the Chyle from the Facaes, and so transmitting it into the Vasa Chylifera, or Venae Lacteae;, as they are called, which conveys it into the Blood, for the recruiting the constant waste that is made there, and repairing its loffes; as also for the Nourishment and Augmentation of the Parts: And for the doing this, 'tis requisite that the Intestines should be long; and they being so, that they should be coiled and winding; that this Separation might be the better performed, and so we find the Gulls in our pygmy. For from the Pylorus to the Anus, they measured Thirteen Feet and three Inches, viz. from the Pylorus to the Caecum or beginning of the Colon, was Nine Foot Ten Inches; and the Colon and Rectum were Three Feet and Five Inches long. The Caecum here, or Appendicula vermiformis, was Four Inches and three quarters long. So that the length of the Guts here, in proportion to tne length of the Body, is much the same as 'tis in a Man. But in two of the Sapajous diffected by the Parisians, the whole Intestines were but Five Foot two Inches; and in the other two Monkeys, Eight Foot long. So that herein our pygmy more resembles a Man, than their Monkeys did.  
And as in the length, so likewise in other Circumstances, the Intestines of our pygmy were liker to those of a Man, than those of the Monkey and Apekind are. For the Parisians tell us, that in their Monkeys, the Intestines were almost all of the same bigness, and that the Ileon was in proportion a great deal bigger, than in a Man. In our Subject we found a sensible difference. For the small Guts, which were much of a bigness, being a little extended, measured in Compass about Two Inches and three quarters. The Colon was Three Inches and three quarters about; and the Appendicula Vermiformis (which was in our pygmy as ' ris in a Man, and is not to be met with in Apes and Monkeys) was about the bigness of a Goose-quill. It's length I have mentioned before.  
Into the Duodenum of our pygmy, a little below the Pylorus, were inserted the Ductus Communis of the Gall, and the Ductus Pancreaticus; they both emptying themselves into the Gut at the same Orifice as is usual in Man. And the same is observed likewise by Drelincourt in the Male Ape he diffected, where he tells us, à Pyloro qui videtur suggrunda ●sse circularis & carnosa principio Ecphyseos praeposita, ad foramen usque intra candem Ecphysin Commune Ductui Bilario & Wirzungiano, praecise pollex est Mathematicus; ab illo autem foramine intra duplicem Ecphyseos tunicam stilus gracillimus intrusus est in praedictam Vesiculae felleae recurvitatem, rursusque ab eodem Intestinali foramine idem stilus compulsus est in Ductum Wirzungianum. But the Parisians observed in the Monkeys, that the Insertion of the Ductus Pancreaticus into the Intestine, (which in Man is always near the Porus Bilarius ) was Two Inches distant therefrom. So that in this Particular the Monkey does not so much resemble a Man, as Apes and our pygmy do.  
The Convolutions and Windings of the small Guts in our pygmy, and their Situation, were much the same, as in a Man: And they were all plentifully irrigated with Blood-Vessels. In the inward Coat of the Intestines I could observe the Miliary Glands, described by Dr. Willis; as also those larger clusters of Glands, mentioned by Joh. Conrade. Peyerus. The Colon I thought proportionably longer, than 'tis in a Man. It had the same Ligaments and Cells, and leaves of Fat hanging to it, as a Man's hath; and the situation, was the same: but it being so long, it had more windings than usually. The Parisians observed in their Monkeys, that the Colon was not redoubled like an S. as in Man, being quite straight. Drelincourt's Ape was more like ours, for speaking of the Colon, he saith, retorquetur variè antequàm producat Rectum; cellulas habet ut in Homine. For the length of the Colon in the Monkeys diffected by the Parisians, was but thirteen Inches; and an Inch in Diameter; whereas, the Colon of our pygmy with the Rectum, was three Foot five Inches, as I have mentioned; and therefore liker to a Man's, and requiring these convolutions the more.  
In a Man the Intestines are commonly distinguished into Intestina Tenuia and Crassa: The Tenuia are subdivided into the Duodenum, Jejunum, and Ileon; The Crassa, into the Caecum, Colon and Rectum: and the Caecum commonly is reputed that Appendicula Vermiformis, which is placed at the beginning of the Colon, where the Ileon empties itself into it. Now this Part in a Man, being so small; and being observed never to contain any Excrement; I can't think, that it deserves the Name of an Intestine, much less to be reputed one of the Crassa. 'Tis true, in Brutes, this part is often sound to be very large and capacious; and to be filled with faces; and in such, it may be justly esteemed an Intestine. As in a Rabbit, 'tis very long and hath a Cochlear Valve; so in an Ostrich, there are two Caecums; each a yard long, with a like Valve, But in Man, 'tis far different. Many therefore do not think this Processus Vermiformis, to be the Caecum; but rather take for is, that bunching out of the beginning of the Colon; which is projected beyond the entrance of the Ileon; which in the Common Ape and Monkey is more, than in a Man. However, I think it not enough, as to make it a distinct: Intestine; and the number of the Intestines in a Man, aught to be made fewer.  
Our pygmy therefore having this Processus Vermiformis in all Circumstances, so like to that in a Man; and Monkeys and Apes having nothing like it: it is a remarkable difference of our Subject from them, and an agreement to the Structure of a Humane Body. So the Parisians tell us in their Monkeys, the Caecum had no Vermiform Appendix. So in the Ape dissected by Blasius, he ●aith, Processus Vermiformis in totum hic desideratur. And so Drelincourt, Caecum caret Epiphysi Vermiformi, qualem homines habent. We will see therefore, what kind of Caecum 'tis, that they describe in the Monkeys and Apes.  
The Parisians tell us, in the Diffection of their Monkeys; That the Caecum was very large, containing two Inches and half in length; and an Inch Diameter at the beginning: it went pointing, and was fortified by three Ligaments, like as the Colon is in Man; there to form little Cells; this Conformation is wholly different from that of a Man's Caecum. 'Tis true, 'tis more projected, than in a Man; So Blasius in his Ape, makes it jutting out beyond the Insertion of the Ileon, Manûs transversae, seu trium digitorum spatium. And Drelincourt tells us, duarum unciarum est. But since it hath those Ligaments of the Colon, 'tis plain, that 'tis only a part of it, and not a distinct Intestine; or as Blasius more truly calls it, Principium Coli. He hath given a figure of it, but not very exact; and in another figure he represents the Valve of the Ileon at the Colon, or rather Valves; for he makes more than one. His Description, as 'tis faultily printed; so I am afraid, it is not very accurately drawn up, and therefore do omit it.  
But what is different from a Man, as also from the Ape and Monkey too, or any other Animal I yet know of; is a sort of Valve I observed at the other Extreme of the Colon in our pygmy, where it passes into the Rectum. For the turn of the Colon here, is very short; and in the inside I observed a Membranous Extension like a Valve, an Inch in length, which divided the Cavity half way. The Rectum did not much differ from the Colon in the magnitude of its fistula, but was much the same; and in other respects, as 'tis in a Man.  
This great length of the Intestines in our pygmy was orderly colligated and fastened to the mesentery, which kept them in a due situation; and so, as to make in them, several windings or convolutions; that hereby they might the better make a distribution of the Chyle; and the whole was, as 'tis in a Man. But I observed here, the Membranes of the mesentery, to be more loosely joined together, than usually. For by moving them by my fingers, I found the blood vessels which were fastened to the upper Membrane, would easily shove over those, that were fixed in the under Membrane of the mesentery; and run on either side of one another, as I would draw them. I have sometimes seen the same in Humane Bodies.  
The Mesaraic Vessels here, were very numerous; as they approach the Intestines, they form several Arches, whereby they communicate with one another; and from these Arches, they send out numerous Branches to the Intestines of each side, which run clasping them; afterwards they subdivide, and inosculate with one another in infinite Ramuli: so that by injecting these Vessels with Mercury, they appeared so numerous; as almost wholly to cover the Trunk of the Intestines. And the same is in Man.  
I have likewise seen, by injecting the Mesenterick Vessels; that the Mercury has passed into the Lymphducts; and so into the Venae or Vasa Lactea. Which is a great contrivance of Nature. For the Motion of all fluids being Pulsion, without this advantage, part of the Chyle, must necessarily stagnate in some of the Vessels; till a fresh distribution of Chyle comes; to protrude it on; and so it would be apt to coagulate and cause Obstructions. But by the Lympha thus passing into them; the Chyle is still forced forwards, and the vessels washed clean of it; and being thus often moistened, they are preserved from becoming over dry, or closed or obstructed. So Provident therefore is Nature, that in the whole Via lactea, not only in the mesentery; but into the Receptaculum Chyli, and Ductus Thoracicus likewise; abundance of Lymphducts are emptied. Which gives us one good Reason; that Nature does not act in vain, in making such a separation of à Liquor from the Mass of Blood; which is so soon to be returned to it again; since hereby she performs so great an Office.  
In the mesentery of our pygmy I observed several small Glands scattered up and down, as in a Man; but not so regularly amassed together in the middle; as the Pancreas Asellij is in Brutes. And Drelincourt observed much the same in the Male Ape. Glandulae ad radicem Mesenterij, & passim in ambitu, numerosae & planae, magnitudinem Lentulae, sed Ovales. Anastomoses frequentissimae Venarum cum Venice & Arteriarum cum Arteriis in universo Mesenterij circulo. And as that part of the mesentery which fastens the Colon is called Mesocolon; so for the same reason, that slip of it represented in our figure, that runs down to the Processus vermiformis, may be called the Meso-caecum.  
We shall next proceed to the Liver, in which part our pygmy very remarkably imitated a Man, more than our common Monkeys or Apes do. For the Liver here was not divided into Lebes as it is in Brutes; but entire as it is in a Man. It had the same shape; it's situation in the body was the same; and it's Colour, and Ligaments, the same, It measured in its greatest length about five Inches and an half; where broadest, 'twas about three Inches; and about an Inch and three quarters in thickness. Towards the Diaphragm 'twas convex: it's under part was Concave, where it receives and emits the Vessels, having a little Lole here, as 'tis in a Man.  
The Parisians remark in the Monkeys they diffected, that the Livermas very different from the Liver of a Man, having five Lobes as in a Dog; viz. two on the right side; and two on the left; and a fifth laid upon the right part of the body of the Vertebrae. This last was divided, making as it were two leaves. So Drelincourt in the Male Ape observes , Je●●ris I 〈◊〉 duo juxta umbilicalem venam, quorum secundo incuneata crat ves●●ula f●llis, duo alij ventriculum amplectebantur, cum lobulo quinto se insercute in spatium ventriculi intra orificium utrumque. So likewise in the Female Ape he tells us, Jecur opplet regionem Epigastricam quint uplici lobo, uno sexto minimo opplens cavitatem lunarem ventriculi. But Blasius in the Ape he dissected saith, Epar cum humano minimò, optimè cum Canino convenit, manif●stissimè in lobos VII divisum, tantae magnitudinis ut etiam utrumque Hypoclondrium occupet. Vesalius 
(57) Vesalij de fabricâ corporis humani, lib. 5. cap. 7. p. m .619.  therefore is in the right, where he saith, Quae enim Dissectionum Professores de Jecoris formâ, ac penulis seu fibris (quos 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Graeci vocant) commentantur; è Canum potius, & simiarum sectionibus, quam hominum didicerunt. Humanum enim Jecur in fibras, Porcini, ac multò adhuc minùs Canini Jecoris modo, non discinditur. And that he hints here at Galen, is plain, from what he expresses in his Epistle ad Joachim Roelants, 
(58) Andr Vesalij Epistola, etc. p.m. 81.  where he farther enlarges upon it. And Galen 
(59) Galen. de Anat. Administrat. lib. 6. cap. 8.  himself tells us, that Herophilus was of this Opinion. So Theophilus Protospatarius 
(60) Theophilus de Corporis humani fabrica, lib. 2. cap. 2.  saith, that the Liver is divided into four Lobes; and gives us there a distinct Name for each. Aristotle, 
(61) Arist. Hist. Animal, lib. 1. cap. 17. p. m. 595.  'tis certain, was much more in the right, where he saith , 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Rotundum Jecur hominis est, ac simile bubulo. For the Liver of a Bullock, like a Man's is entire; and not divided into Lobes. However Franciscus Puteus 
(62) Franc. Putei Apologia pro Galeno in Anatomicis contra Andr. Vesalium, lib. 5. p. m. 153.  in his Apology, having named several Physicians and Chirurgeons, that were with him at the opening of Charles the Ninth, Duke of Savoy, saith, high omnes per Jovem mihi possunt esse Testes, quod observatum est Epar habuisse quatuor pinnulas. Jacobus Silvius 
(63) Vaesani cujusdam Calumniarum in Hipp. Galenique rem Anat. depulsio. per Jac. Syivium. vid. Depuls'. 26. p. m. 150.  likewise justifies Galen, against Vesalius; and tells us, Quin & Hypocrates Lobos Epatis humani quinque connumerat libro suo de ossibus, Rufus autem quatuor vel quinque. But Renatus Henerus 
(64) Renat. Henerus adversus Jacobi Sylvij Depulsionum Anat. Calumnias. pro Andrea Vesalio Apologia, p.m. 55.  hath answered Silvius as to this matter; and there needs no farther dispute about it, if one will but believe his own Eyes, he may fully satisfy himself, that, in an Humane Liver there are none of those Lobes, but that 'tis one entire Body; as it was also in our pygmy. But in Apes and Monkeys the Liver is divided into Lobes.  
The great use of the Liver is for to make a separation of the Gall from the Mass of Blood. We will therefore here examine the Biliary Vessels; nor do I find them any thing different from those in a Man; only the Bladder of Gall here in our pygmy seemed longer, being four Inches in length. It's adhaesion to the Liver was not so much as it is in a Man; for at the fundus or end, it juts beyond the Liver about half an Inch. For about three quarters of an Inch, it is more closely joined to the Liver; afterwards it is fastened to it only by a Membrane, as is also the Ductus Cysticus. So that the Vesica fellea when inflated with wind, seemed more to represent an Intestine by its anfractus and length, than the usual shape of the Bladder of Gall; which commonly is more bellying out.  
The Parisians observed in their Monkeys, that the Bladder was fastened to the first of the two Lobes which were on the right side. That it was an Inch long, and half an inch broad; it had a great Ductus, which was immediately inserted underneath the Pylorus. This Ductus received three others, which instead of that, which in Man is single, and which is called Hepaticus; these three Ductus' had their Branches dispersed like Roots into all the Lobes of the Liver, so that the first had four roots, viz. one in each of the three right Lobes, and one in the first of the left; the second and third Ductus had both their roots in the second of the left Lobes, these branches did not run under the Tunicle of the Liver, so that they were apparent, and not hid in the Parenchyma, as they generally are. But in our Subject the distribution of the Ductus Hepaticus was altogether the same as it is in Man. In the Male Ape, Drelincourt describing the Bladder of Gall, saith, Vesicula fellea longa 22/3 pollicibus à fundo ad cervicem, ubi recurvitatem habet maximam, dimidiatè haeret mersa substantiae Jecoris.  
The Ductus Hepaticus in our pygmy issued out of the Liver with two branches; one arising from the right, the other from the left part of the Liver; and after a short space, joined into one Trunk; and that, after a little way, joining with the Ductus Cysticus, do form the Ductus Communis, which empties itself into the Duodenum a little below the Pylorus, at the same Orifice with the Ductus Pancreaticus, exactly as 'tis in Man, as I have mentioned.  
At the Simous part of the Liver I observed the Vena Porta to enter, as likewise the Epatic Arteries and Nerves, And here in the Membrane about these Vessels, I observed a pretty large whitish Gland. The Vena Vmbilicalis entered the Liver at the fissure. It seemed large, but I found its fistula or pipe was closed. The Vena Cava issued out of the Liver at the Convex part, where 'twas joined to the Diaphragm.  
In the Spleen of our pygmy I did not observe any thing extraordinary, or different from a Humane Spleen. It was of a lead Colour, and of the shape represented in our figure; 'twas fastened by Membranes to the Peritonaeum; and by the Omentum and Vasa brevia to the Stomach, so that upon inflating the Stomach, the Spleen would be brought to lie close on the Stomach, as if it was fastened immediately there. The Spleen here was two Inches and an half long; and one Inch and a quarter broad; and seated as usually in the left Hypochondre under the Bastard Ribs. The Ramus Splenicus was very remarkable, sending its Trunk along the Pancreas, as in Man, and having numerous branches near the Spleen.  
The Parisians tell us, that in their Monkeys the Spleen was seated along the Ventricle as in Man; but it's figure was different, in one of our Subjects being made as the Heart is represented in Blazonry; it's Basis containing an Inch. They give a figure of it, but nothing like that of ours, which more represented the figure of an Humane Spleen; tho' in Man its figure is often observed very different. Blasius in the Ape he dissected, observes that the Spleen triangularis figurae est, exiguus admodùm respectu corporis; coloris nigricantis, laeve equidem molleque valdè corpus, hast exteriùs inaequale quasi ex globulis variis confectum, adeò ut etiam conglomeratis Glandulis Substantiam Lienis annumerare velle, tali in subjecto fundamentum aliquod agnoscat. Ex Ramo Splenico numerosoes eosque insignes Ventriculo suppeditat ramos, magnitudinem & figuram externam Fig. 3a. Tab. XI. exhibet. But his figure of the Spleen was nothing like to that of ours. For I did not observe those inequalities in the superfice which he represents in his, to exhibit the conglomerate Glands. 'Tis true, having injected the Spleen of our pygmy the Mercury filling the cellulated body of the Spleen, did make an appearance on the surface somewhat like those inequalities in his figure. But Frederic. de Rusch 
(65) Epist●la Anatomica Pr●bl●matica qua●ta.  is very positive, that neither those Glands, nor Cells mentioned by Malpighius, are to be met with in a Humane Spleen: tho' he grants, that they are in the Spleen of Brutes. Drelincourt in the Female Ape saith, Lien Scalenum figura refert, cohaeret Reni sinistro & liber est ● Diaphragmate. And in the Male Ape he observes, Lien triangularis & crassior quam in foeminâ, Pancreas excipiens.  
We shall therefore now proceed to the Pancreas, which in our pygmy was situated, just as it is in a Humane Body; lying under the Stomach, transverse to ihe Spine, from the Spleen towards the Liver. It was about two Inches long, about half an Inch broad, of a white yellowish Colour; it's surface uneven, being made up of abundance of Glands; it's Secretory Dust emptied itself into the Duodenum, just where the Ductus Communis of the Gall doth, as I have mentioned before.  
The Parisians in their Monkeys observed, that the Pancreas had only it's secure, which made it to resemble that of Man; it's connection, and insertion being wholly particular. For it was strongly fastened to the Spleen; and the insertion of its Ductus into ihe Intestine (which in Man is always near the Porus Bilarius) was two Inches distant therefrom. Blasius in his Ape describes it thus; Pancreas ventriculo substratum, solidoe admodùm substantiae est, nec adcò molle, quam in Canibus aliisque Animalibus notatur. Longum itidim insigniter, hast latitudinis cjus, q●aenè minimi digiti latitudini respondeat. He takes no notice here, how the Ductus Pancreaticus was inserted; which Drelincourt tells us in the Female Ape was eight lines above the Porus Bilarius. Pancreas connalum I ●enali Caudae, & extremo Reni sinistro. Fjus ductus inseritur o●to lineis supra Porum Bilarium, contrà ac Canibus, substernitur immediate Ventricilo, & supersternitur brevi Intestino. Tho' in the Male Ape he tells us. 'tis inserted into the Duodenum at the same Orisice with the Dust of the Gall, as I have already mentioned and quoted before.  
The Glandulae Renales in our pygmy were very large, and placed a little above the Kidneys as they are in Man. That on the right side, was of a triangular; that on the left of an oblong figure. They were about three quarters of an Inch long: and almost half an Inch broad. They had the same Vessels, as there are in a Man.  
The Parisians in their Monkeys, observe that the Gland called Capsula Atrabilaria, was very visible, by reason that the Kidney was without fat. This Gland was white, and the Kidney of a bright red; it's figure was triangular. Blasius in his Ape tells us, Glandula Renalis triangularis serè figuraeest, notabilis valdè pro ratione Corporis, and gives us a figure of it, which was nothing like ours. What Drelincourt remarks in the Male Ape, is, Capsulae Atrabilariae triplicem Scrobiculum habent, quarum liquor expressus linguam non it à constringit, uti in Capsulis foemineis. And in the Female Ape he tells us, Ren Succenturiatus sinister ab Emulgente venam habet; idem major Dextro. This I observed in our pygmy; but he saith nothing farther here of their Liquor, nor did I taste it in ours.  
We shall now proceed to the Kidneys. In our pygmy I did observe very little or no fat in the common or outward Membrane, usually called Adiposa: Drelincourt observed the same, nullus hic Adeps in Tunicâ communi vel propriâ, as he tells us of his Ape. The Kidneys of our pygmy were two Inches and a quarter long, an Inch and an half broad; and about an Inch in depth. They had not altogether so large a Sinus at the Entrance of the Emulgent Vessels, as there is in a Man's; and the whole appeared somewhat rounder; but their situation was the same, as were likewise the Emulgents. Having divided the right Kidney length-ways, I observed the Cortical or Glandulous Part to appear like a distinct Substance, being a of tawny or yellowish colour; and different from the Inward or Tubulary Part; which was more entire and compacted together, than in a Man's; and was of a red colour, by means of the blood vessels which run between the Tubuli Vrinarij or Secretory Ducts, which make up this part of the Kidneys. Which Vessels when inflamed and over-extended, by making a Compression on these Tubuli Vrinarij, may cause a Suppression of Urine; in which case Phlebotomy or Bleeding is very necessary. And without doubt was the Cause of the Success Riverius 
(66) Riverij Observe. Med. Cent. I. Obj. 1.  met with in a Patient, who had a Suppression of Urine for three days; for upon bleeding freely, he was presently relieved, and in a short time rendered a large quantity of Urine. In this Tubulary Part of a Humane Kidney I always observe these Blood Vessels: but here usually the Cortical or Glandulous Part makes a deeper descent between the heads of this Tubulary, and divides it into several Bodies; and as many of them as appear, so many lesser Kidneys may be reckoned to make up the Body of each Kidney. In Infants the Kidney externally appears more divided than in Adult Persons; but most remarkably they are so, in a Bear, the Porpois and an Ostrich; where there are abundance of distinct small Kidneys amassed together to make up each.  
The Parisians in the Kidneys of their Monkeys observe, that they were round and flat; their situation was more unequal, than in a Man; the right being much lower than the left, viz. half its bigness. Drelincourt in the Female Ape remarks, Renes globost, dexter intra Hypochondrium incumbit Costae 11. & 12. Sinister locum habet intra Costam ultimam. Altitudo Renis dimidiae unciae. Renalium venarum dextra longè elatior sinistrâ. Rene aperto Carnis discrimen ut in homine, exterior quidem nigricans lineis quatuor crassa, interior albicans lineis duabus.  
The Pelvis of the Kidney in our pygmy was as 'tis usually in a Man; and the ureters had nothing remarkably different in their Structure, from the common make. They were about the bigness of a Wheat straw; and were inserted into the neck of the Bladder, as represented in our figure; rather somewhat nearer the neck, than in an Humane Bladder.  
The Parisians and Blasius have no remarks upon theVreters. Drelincourt in the Male Ape saith, Vreteres suprà Psoas Musculo & Iliaco, atque subtùs vasis Spermaticis, quibus decussa●im substrati sunt etiam quibus vascula admittunt, sese reflectunt in Hypogastricam, decussantes ramos Iliacoes & Ejaculatorios. And in the Female, Vreteris expansiones arcuatìm reflexae ut in homine. Vasa habent supernè à Renalibus, infernè à Musculis.  
The Bladder of Urine in our pygmy was of an Oblong figure, not so globous as commonly in Man, for being moderately blown up it measured four Inches in length; and two Inches and half in breadth. In other Circumstances 'twas agreeable enough with an Humane Bladder.  
The Parisians tell us, that in the Female Monkey, the Neck of the Bladder had its hole otherwise than in Women, being very far in the Neck of the Matrix, viz. towards the middle, at the place where its roughness began, which were seen only towards the Extremity of the Ductus, near the internal Orifice. Blasius saith nothing of it in his Ape; and all that Drelincourt tells us is, Vesica Peritonaeo suspensa ut in aliis Brutis.  
Before we proceed to the Parts of Generation (which remain besides to be here described) we shall a little take notice of those large Canales of the Blood, the Arteria Aorta and the Vena Cava, and the Rivulets they emit or do receive; all which I find in our pygmy to be just the same, as they are in a Man. For from the Aorta arises here, the Arteria Caeliaca; the Arteria Mesenterica superior; then the Emulgent Arteries; below them, the Spermatick Arteries; then the Arteria Mesenterica inferior; then the Trunk divides into the Iliac Branches. So the Vena Cava too in our pygmy exactly imitated that in a Man.  
How the Structure of these Vessels are in Monkeys, the Parisians do not tell us, and their figure is very imperfect; as is likewise that in Blasius, which seems altogether fictitious. What he writes, is this; Arteria magna circa Renem dextrum succumbit Venae Cavae, & ubi Iliacoes Ramos constituit eandem supergreditur; contrà ac in Homine, Cane, aliisque animalibus fieri reperimus, ubi sinistra occupat, hinc à sinistra ad dextram progreditur supra Arteriam. So Drelincourt tells us in the Male Ape, Aorta descendens mox atque bifurcatur equitat, & adscendenti Cavae incumbit.  
We come now to the Parts of Generation; and shall begin with the Vasa Praeparantia; The Arteries and Veins. The Spermatic Arteries in our pygmy do both arise out of the Trunk of the Aorta, a little below the Emulgent Arteries, as in our figure; and after having ran a little way, they meet with the Spermatic Vein; and are both included in a common Capsula, and so do descend to the Testes. These Arteries do carry the blood to the Testes, from whence the Semen is afterwards separated; the residue of the Blood is returned from the Testes by the Spermatic Veins; whereof that on the right side enters into the Trunk of the Vena Cava, a little below the right Emulgent Vein; and that of the left, is emptied into the left Emulgent Vein, just all one as it is in a Humane Body. Having injected the Spermatic Vein with Mercury, it discovered abundance of Vessels, running waving; which otherwise did not appear: and a great many of them were extremely fine and small.  
The Parisians give no description of the Spermatic Vessels in their Monkeys; and in their figure the left Spermatic Vein is omitted, or left out. Thomas Bartholine 
(67) Thom. Bartholin. Acta Medica & Philos. Hasniens. an. 1691. & 1672. Obs. 36.  in his Anatomy of a Mamomet (which he describes, as not having a Tail; and therefore it must be of the Apekind, and not a Cercopithecus, or a Monkey, as he calls it) in his figure of these parts, represents the left Spermatic Vein, emptying itself into the left Emulgent, as it is in our Creature. Blasius therefore in the account of the Ape he dissected, must be mistaken; both in his figure and description too; for in the former, he represents the left Spermatic Vein running into the Trunk of the Cava; and justifies it in the latter; in telling us, Vasa Spermatica utroque latere ex Trunco Cavae & Aortae oriuntur, & quidem altiori loco ea quae sunt lateris dextri, inferiore quae sinistri. But Drelincourt certainly is more in the right, who informs us, that in the Male Ape he dissected, Vena Spermatica dextra crassa, & ab interiori trunco Cavae adscendentis pollice infra Emulgentem sinistram enascitur, surculosque emittit sinistros in Membranas vicinas. Arteria Spermatica dextra à trunco anteriori Aortae paulò infra Emulgentem sinistram enascens sub Venâ Emulgente intercruciat Cavam ascendentem, quae superinequitat, & conjungitur Venae Consociali eò praecisè loci ubi Vena inseritur suum in truncum. Sinistra Vena Spermatica inseriturin Emulgentem juxta truncum Cavae, & consocialem Arteriam admittit eò praecisè loci, in quo enascitur dextra. So in the Female Ape he saith, Spermatica Vena sinistra ab Emulgente sinistrâ, dextra è Trunci parte anteriore, policy infra Emulgentem sinistram.  
We come now to describe the Testes, which in our pygmy were not contained in a pendulous Scrotum, as they are in Man, but more contracted and pursed up by the outward Skin, nearer to the Os Pubis, and were seated by the sides of the Penis, without the Os Pubis; and I observed them bunching out there, before the Dissection; so that it seemed to want a Scrotum; or at least the Skin which enclosed them, was not so dilated, as to hang down like a Cod; but contracted them up nearer to the Body of the Penis which to me seems a wise Contrivance of Nature. For hereby these Parts are less exposed to the injuries, they might otherwise receive in climbing Trees, or other accidents in the Woods. However, the outward Skin here that encloses them, performs altogether the office of a Scrotum. And if I mistake not, I observed that Sepimentum, as in a Humane Scrotum; which is made by a descent of a Membrane there, which divides each Testicle from one another.  
But whether the Testes being thus closely pursed up to the Body, might contribute to that great salaciousness this Species of Animals are noted for, I will not determine: Tho' 'tis said, that these Animals, that have their Testicles contained within the Body, are more inclined to it, than others. That the whole Apekind is extremely given to Venery, appears by infinite Stories related of them. And not only so, but different from other Brutes, they covet not only their own Species, but to an Excess are inclined and solicitous to those of a different, and are most amorous of fair Women. Besides what I have already mentioned, Gabriel Clauderus 
(68) Miscell. Curiosa German. Decur. 2. Ann. 5. Obs. 187.  tells us of an Ape, which grew so amorous of one of the Maids of Honour, who was a celebrated Beauty, that no Chains, nor Consinement, nor Beating, could keep him within Bounds; so that the Lady was forced to petition to have him banished the Court. But that Story of Castanenda in his Annals of Portugal (if true) is very remarkable; of a Woman who had two Children by an Ape. I shall give it in Latin, as 'tis related by Licetus; and 'tis quoted too by Anton. Deusingius 
(69) Ant. Deusingij Fassicul. Dissertat. select. de Ratione & Loquela Brutorum, p.m. 196.  and others.  
In hanc Sententiam faciunt (saith Fort. Licetus 
(70) Fortun. Licetus de Monstrorum Causis, lib. 2. cap. 68 p.m. 217. ) quae Castanenda retulit in Annalibus. Lusitaniae de filiis ex muliere, ac simio natis, mulierem nempe ob quoddam crimen in insulam desertam navi deportatam, quum ibi exposita fuisset, eam simiorum, quibus fertilis locus erat, agmen circumstetisse fremebundum; supervenisse unum grandiorem, cui reliqui loco cesserint: hunc mulierem blandè manu captam in antrum ingens abduxisse, eique cum ipsum tum ceteros copiam pomorum, nucum, radicumque variarum apposuisse; & nutu ut vesceretur invitâsse; tandem à fer â coactam ad stuprum; facinus hoc multis diebus continuatum adeò, ut duos ex ferâ liberos pepererit: ita miseram (quantò mors optabilior!) vict itâsse per annos aliquot; donec Deus misertus navim eò Lusitanam detulisset; quumque milites in terram aquatum ex proximo ad antrum fonte exscendissent: abessetque fortè fortuna simius; feminam ad invisos diu mortales accurrisse, & occidentem ad pedes supplicâsse, uti se facinore, & calamitosissima servitute irent ereptum, adsentientibusque, & casum miserantibus illis, eam cum ipsis navim adscendisse. Sed ecce tibi simium supervenientem inconditis gestibus, & fremitibus conjugem non conjugem revocantem: ut vidit vela ventis data, concito cursu de liberis unum matri ostentat, minatur, ni redeat, in mare praecipitaturum; nec segniter fecit, quod minatus: tum recurrit ad antrum, & eâdem velocitate ad littus rediens ostentat alterum, minatur, & demergit: subsequitur, donec undae natantem vicere. Rem totam Lusitania teste notissimam, & à Rege mulierem Ulytsipone addictam ignibus, quorundam precibus vita impetrata, lethum cum claustro perpetuo commutâsse.  
But to return to our Business. Our pygmy in this Particular of the Scrotum, more resembles the Ape- kind, than a Man. For the Parisians tell us, that the Parts of Generation in three of our Subjects, which were Males, were different from those of Man, there being no Scrotum in two of these Subjects, and the Testicles not appearing, by reason that they were hid in the fold of the Groin. It is true that the third, which was one of the Sapajous, had a Scrotum, but it was so shrunk, that it did not appear. Or, as they afterwards express it, The Testicles were shut up in a Scrotum, which joined them close up to the Penis. So in the Ape Blasius describes, Testes insignes satis, sacculo suo inclusi, non dependent extra abdomen, ad modum eum quo in Homine, Canibus, similibusque Animalibus aliis, sed vicini adeò sunt tendinibus musculorum Abdominis, quos vasa Spermatica transeunt, ac si iis uniti essent, sic ut potius in Inguine utroque collocatos eos dicerem, quam ultra ossa Pubis a Corpore pendulos, And so Drelincourt to the same purpose; Scrotum pendulum nullum est, sest Testiculi utrinque juxta Ossis Pubis summa latera, vel Spinam summam ejus decumbunt extra prorsus Abdominis cavum, & proindè extra Musculorum Epigastrij aponeurosis.  
In the other Parts I am here to describe, I find our pygmy more conformable to the Structure of the same in a Man. For the Testes were included in a Tunica Vaginalis, and had a Cremaster Muscle: which being separated, I observed the Epididymis large, and the Body of the Testis to be about the bigness of a Filbird; and it's compounding Parts nothing at all different from those of a Man. Jacobus Sylvins 
(71) Jac, Sylvij Variorum Corporum dissect. Operum, p. m. 130.  in the Ape he diffected, observed, the Testes humanis majores.  
The Parisians tell us, that in some of their Subjects the Testicles were long and straight, and but one line in breadth, and eight in length. In one of their Sapajous they were found of a figure quite contrary, and almost as remote from the figure of those of Man, being perfectly round. Drelincourt's account in his Ape is, Tunica Elytroides fibris carneis à Cremaster conspersa, ut in homine. Arteria Spermatica miro lusu, spiratim revolvitur super Testiculi dorsum. Testiculus autem Ventri Epididymidum adhaeret, nisi fibrillis paucis & laxis, capite suo, quo Spermatica Deferentia admittit, separatur illaesus, cauda autem sua, qua ejaculatoria vasa emittit, tot punctula candicantia exhibet, divulsus ab Epididymide, quot à Testiculo canaliculi protenduntur.  
From the Epididymis in our pygmy (as it is in a Man) was continued the Vas Deferens; a slender Ductus, which conveys the Semen from the Testicle to the Vesiculae Seminales. These Vesiculae were two cellulated Bladders placed under the neck of the Bladder of Urine; which on the outside, did seem (as it were) nothing else but the Vas Deferens dilated, and placed in a waving figure there. And as the Body of the Testes was made up of a curious convoluted Contexture of Seminal Vessels, which running into fewer, form at last the Body of the Epididymis; and these Vessels afterwards passing all into one Dust, do make up the Vas Deferens: so this Vas Deferens here, being dilated and enlarged, does form the Vesiculae Seminales. And the same is in a Man.  
The Parisians here do take notice of that Passage in Aristotle I have already quoted, where he likens the Parts of Generation in the Male Ape to those of a Dog, more than a Man. But the Philosopher herein, is under a Mistake; for, as they instance, in the Penis of a Dog, there is a Bone, which is not in the Monkey's; so likewise in Monkeys, there are Vesiculae Seminales, which are not to be met with in a Dog. They describe them in their Monkeys thus: The Glandulous Prostatoe were small; the Parastatae Cyrsoides were in requital very large; they contained an Inch in length; their breadth was unequal, being four lines towards the neck of the Bladder, and a line and an half at the other end, differing herein from those of Man, who has them slenderest near the neck of the Bladder. They were composed of several little Bags, which opened into one another. The Caruncle of the Urethra was small, but very like to that of a Man. Blasius hath given us a figure of these Parts, which I do not like as neither that of the Parisians. He describes them thus: Vesiculae Seminales hic valdè amplae, quae immisso flatu per ductum Seminalem Ejaculatorium insignitèr intumescunt, Quod si premantur, manifestissimeè observamus Materiam iis contentam moveri in Meatum Vrinarium, Vesicae continuum, & quidem per foramen singular, quoth in unoquoque latere unicum est, quae res occasionem videtur dedisse Jacobo Sylvio duos ductûs Seminales in simiâ constituendi. All that Drelincourt saith of them is, Vasa ejaculatoria retrò Vesicam tendunt in Corpuscula proedura mirè anfractuosa, ut & ipsum initium Epididymidis. Which is very conformable to what I observed in our pygmy.  
Between the root of the Penis, and neck of the Bladder, is seated the Corpus Glandulosum, or the Prostatae, which in our pygmy appeared the same as in Man. The Parisians tell us in their Monkeys that they were small. Blasius in his figure, besides the Prostates, which he saith are Glandula vesicis adstans, albidior solidiorque represents another, at the Letters (H. H.) viz. Glandula alia, major, rubicunda & plexu Nervorum, aliorumque vasorum praedita; which is no Gland, but the Bulb of the Penis. Drelincourt in his Ape tells us, Corpora Glandulosa duos velut Nates circa vesicae cervicem suprà Sphincterem exhibent.  
We come now to the Penis, which in our pygmy was two Inches long; the girth of it at the root was an Inch and a quarter; but it grew taperer towards the end. It had no fraenum, so that the Praepuce could be retracted wholly down; and herein our pygmy is different from a Man. The Slit of the Penis here was perpendicular as in a Man. In the figure the Parisians give us, it seems to be horizontal, as it is plainly represented by Bartholine in his third and fourth figure of his Mamomet, although by his second figure one would think otherwise. Whether there was any Balanus or Glans in the Penis of our pygmy, or what it was, I am uncertain: I do not remember I observed any. In my third figure the Penis is represented decurtated at the end, and without the Praeputium, which was left entire to the Skin. Dreclincourt's account of it in the Ape is this; Genitale prorsùs expers est fraenuli ac proinde Praeputium devolvitur ad radicem usque Penis, & denudatur Glans ipsa, atque Penis integer. Balanus consimilis virili, excepto fraenulo, atque praeterea hiatum maximum exhibet, quâ parte Ligamenta Cavernosa desinant, & Glans utrinque prominet. At the root of the Penis of our pygmy, we observed the Musculi Erectores to be short, and thicker proportionably than in a Man and the Ligamentum Suspensorium larger: The Musculus accelerator Vrinae was large, covering the Bulb of the Cavernous body of the Vrethra. The Corpora Nervosa, or the two Cavernous bodies of the Penis were divided length-ways by a Sepimentum in the middle, as in Man. In the Vrethra likewise there was a Cavernous body. The Vessels of the Penis answered exactly to those of a Man.  
Blasius in his Ape faith, Penis Nervosum Corpus unicum tantum habere videtur, sepimento notabili destitutum. But I am apt to think he might be mistaken; for in our Subject 'twas very plainly divided, but more remarkably towards the root than forwards. What he adds afterwards, Circa radicem Penis Tuberculum exile occurrit, exteriùs carnosae naturae, interiùs reticulari vasorum plexu refertum, interstitia ipsius materiâ rubicundâ occupante, by this I suppose he means the Bulb of the Penis. Drelincourt expresses it better, where he saith, Totus Penis duobus Ligamentis Cavernosis à tuberibus Ischij gaudet. In our Subject these two bodies were very large and cavernous within. But what Drelincourt adds, Vrethra, planè carnosa; This was different in our pygmy; for as I have mentioned, the sides of theVrethra, here were Cavernous too, tho' not much.  
How the Organs of Generation are in the Female of this Species of Animals, I have had no opportunity of informing myself. But by Analogy I can't but think, they must be very like to those of a Woman, since they are so even in Monkeys and Apes in several respect; tho' in some, they imitate the Structure of these Parts in Brutes. Thus the Parisians observe, The generative Parts of the Female had also a great many things which rendered them different from those of Bitch's, herein resembling those of Women; there were some of them likewise which were as in Bitch's, and after another manner than in Woman; for the exterior Orifice was round and straight, as in Bitch's, and the generality of other Brutes, and had neither Nymphae nor Carunculae. The Neck of the Bladder had its hole otherwise than in Woman, being very far in the Neck of the Matrix, viz. towards the middle, at the place where its roughness began, which were seen only towards the extremity of the Ductus near the Internal Orifice. The Trunks of the Matrix were also different from those of Women, and resembling those of Brutes in that they were proportionably longer, and more redoubled by various turnings. The Clitoris had something more conformable to that which is seen in other Brutes that have it, than in that of Women, being proportionably greater, and more visible than it is in Women. It was composed of two Nervous and Spongious Ligaments, which proceeding from the lower part of the Os Pubis, and obliquely advancing to the sides of these Bones, did unite to form a third Body, which was ten lines in length. It was form by uniting of the two first, which a very strong Membrane joined together, going from one of the Ligaments to the other, besides a hard and nervous Membrane which enveloped them. They terminated at a Gland like to that of the Penis of the Male. The little Muscles, which were fastened to these Ligaments, proceeded as usual from the tuberosities of the Ischium. These Ligaments were of Substance so thin and spongious, that the wind penetrated, and made them easily to swell, when blown into the Network, of the Veins and Arteries which is in this place. This Network was visible in this Subject, being composed of larger Vessels than they proportionably are in Women. It was situated as usually under the second pair of Muscles of the Clitoris. It's figure was Pyramidal, ending from a very large Basis in a point, which run along the third Ligament to its extremity towards the Gland.  
The rest of the Parts of Generation were like to those of Women. The Neck of the Bladder had its Muscles as in Women: For there were a great number of fleshy Fibres, which proceeding from the Sphincter of the Anus, were fastened to the sides of the Neck of the Uterus, and other such like Fibres which did come from the Sphincter of the Bladder to insert themselves at the same place. The Body of the Uterus, its Membranes, internal Orifice, its Ligaments as well the round as broad, and all its Vessels had a conformation entirely like to that, which these same Parts have in Women. The Testicles, which were ten lines long, and two broad, were as in Women, composed of a great number of small Bladders, and fastened near the Membranes which are at the extremity of the Tubae, and which is called their Fringe.  
Drelincourt hath very little on this Subject, all he saith is, Vrethra rubicunda solida & brevis. Vagina admodum rugosa, monticulum habens in medio, Papillis extuberans ut in Palato, Pollicem longa, transversim scissa, Pollicem lata. Orificium interiùs valdè solidum. Cervix interior admodùm dura, & paulò intrà osculum internum duritie cartilaginosâ.  
We shall proceed now to the Parts of the Middle Venture, the Thorax; and here, as the Parts are fewer, so my Remarks will be also: and the rather, because in our pygmy we observed so very little difference from the Structure of the same Parts in a Man. I must confess I can't be so particular in all Circumstances, as I would, because for the preserving the Sceleton more entire, I did not take off the Sternum. However, I observed enough to satisfy myself with what I thought most material.  
This Cavity was divided from the Abdomen by the Diaphragm, whose Aponeurosis or Tendon seemed rather larger than in a Man: and the second Muscle which encompassed the Gula, as it passes through it, was very fair.  
I made no Remarks upon the Pleura, and Mediastinum: The Thymus in our pygmy was about an Inch long, and placed as 'tis in Man; downwards 'twas divided, but upwards 'twas joined together. So in a Man I have often observed it divided. Generally this part is larger in Infants and Embrios than in grown Persons, for the Reasons I have frequently mentioned in my Anatomical Lectures. The Parisians observed in their Monkeys that the Thymus was large. Blasius and Drelincour● have no Remarks about it.  
The Lungs in our pygmy had three Lobes on one side, and but two on the other; five in all. Their Colour, Substance, Situation, and all Circumstances exactly resemble a Man's. The Parisians tell us, that in their Monkeys the Lungs had seven Lobes, three on the right side, and as many on the left, the seventh was in the Cavity of the Mediastine, as in the generality of Brutes. This again makes a notable difference between the internal parts of the Ape, and those of Man, whose Lungs have generally at the most but five Lobes, oftener but four, and sometimes but two. Vesalius affirms that he never saw in Man this fifth Lobe, which he reports to be in Apes, supposing that they have but five. The Passage that the Parisians hint at in Vesalius is this, Lobum autem qui in Canbus, simiisque Venae Cavae Caudicem suffulcit, nunquam in homine observavi, & hunc illo destitui certo certius scio, quamvis interim Galeni locus in septimo de administrandis Dissectionibus mihi memoria non exciderit, quo inquit, quintum hunc Pulmonis Lobum eos non latêre, qui recte sectionem administrant; innuens Herophilo & Marino ejusmodi Lobum fuisse incognitum, uti sanè fuit, cum illi Hominum Cadavera, non autem cum ipso, simiarum ac Canum duntaxat aggrederentur, in quibus praesenti Lobo nihil est manifestius. 
(72) Andr. Vesalij de Corporis humani fabrica, lib. 6. cap. 7. p. 724.  Tho Galen be herein mistaken, Vesalius certainly is too severe in his Censure, in charging him, that he never dissected any thing but Apes and Dogs; for the contrary evidently appears in abundance of Instances, that might be produced. And one would think he had not dissected Apes and Monkeys in making but five Lobes in their Lungs, whereas in either there are more. In what he argues, that this fifth Lobe in a Man could not lie upon the Vena Cava; because in a Man the Pericardium is fastened to the Diaphragm, and the Vana Cava enters there, and so immediately passes to the Heart; this is true, and the same I observed in our Paymie. So that in the formation of this Part, our pygmy exactly resembles a Man; and is different from both the Mankey and Ape- kind. The former we have seen; as to the latter, Drelincourt tells us in the Male Ape; Pulmo dexter quadrifidus, Lobus insimus omnium crassissimus, superior minùs crassus, intermedius reapsè medius silu & magnitudine. Quarius demùm crenam insculptam habet, quâ parte Cavae fulcrum praebet. Pulmo sinister bisidus, & Lobus ejus superior bifurcatus. So in the Female Ape, Lobi Pulmonis dextri totalitèr divisi IV, quorum superior, bisidus totus, adeo ut sint quinque in eâ parte: sivister Pulmo bisidus totus, & Lobus superior ultrà dimidium sui divisus.  
The Trachaea or windpipe in our pygmy was altogether the same as in a Man; consisting of a regular order of Cartilaginous Annuali, which were not perfectly continued round; but towards the Spine, were joined by a strong Membrane. Drelincourt saith of it, Trachaeae annuli se habent uti Intestinourm spirae, nervosis Membranis colliguntur. The Comparison, I think, is not so well made.  
For the present we will leave following the Dust of the Trachaea up to the Larynx, (the Part according to the Method of Nature, we should have begun with) and make some farther Observations, on those under our present view. In the Cavity of the Thorax therefore, (as I have remarked) the Pericardium or that Bag that encloses the Heart in our pygmy, was fastened to the Diaphragm, just 'tis in Man. I must confess, when I first observed it, I was surprised, because I had not seen it so in Brutes before. And Vesalius and others make it as a peculiarity to a Man. I will quote Vesalius' words, and make an Inference from our observation, and so proceed.  
Vesalius 
(73) Andr. Vesalij de Corporis Humani f●brica, lib. 6. cap. 8. p.m. 728.  therefore tells us, Caeterum Involucri mucro, & dextri ipsius lateris egregia portio Septi transversi nerveo circulo validissimè, amploque admodùm spatio connascitur, quod Hominibus est peculiar. Simiis quoque & Canibus & Porcis involucrum à septo mullùm distat. Tantùm abest ut ipsi magnâ sui portione connecteretur, adeò sanè ut & hinc luce clarius constet, Galenum hominis viscera aut oscitantèr, aut neutiquàm spectâsse, Simiasque & Canes nobis describentem, immerito veteres arguisse. He can't forbear at all turns to have a fling at Galen: But he is here in the right, and Galen mistaken. So Blancardus 
(74) Stephn Blanca●ai Anatom. reformat. cap. 2. p. 8.  tells us, Homo prae caeteris Animalibus hoc peculiare habet, quod ejus Pericardium Septi transversi medio semper accrescat, cum idem in Quadrupedum genere liberum, & aliquanto spatio ab ipso remotum sit.  
Now our pygmy having the Pericardium thus fastened to the Diaphragm, it seems to me, as if Nature designed it to be a Biped and to go erect. For therefore in a Man is the Pericardium thus fastened, that in Expiration it might assist the Diastole of the Diaphragm: for otherwise the Liver and Stomach being so weighty, they would draw it down too much towards the Abdomen; so that upon the relaxation of its Fibres in its Diastole, it would not ascend sufficiently into the Thorax, so as to cause a Subsidence of the Lungs by lessening the Cavity there. In Quadrupeds there is no need of this adhaesion of the Pericardium to the Diaphragm: For in them, in Expiration, when the Fibres of the Diaphragm are relaxed, the weight of the Viscera of the Abdomen will easily press the Diaphragm up, into the Cavity of the Thorax, and so perform that Service. Besides, was the Pericardium fastened to the Diaphragm in Quadrupeds, it would hinder its Systole in Inspiration; or it's descent downwards upon the contraction of its Muscular Fibres; and the more, because the Diaphragm being thus tied up, it could not then so freely force down the weight of the Viscera, which are always pressing upon it, and consequently not sufficiently dilate the Cavity of the Thorax, and therefore must hinder their Inspiration. Thus we see how necessary it is, that in a Man the Pericardium should be fastened to the Diaphragm, and in Quadrupeds how inconvenient it would be; that from hence I think we may safely conclude, that Nature designed our pygmy to go erect, since in this particular 'tis so like a Man; which the common Apes and Monkeys are not; and tho' they are taught to go erect, yet 'tis no more than what Dogs may be taught to do.  
We proceed now to the Heart; where we observed that in our pygmy, its Auricles, Ventricles, Valves and Vessels were much the same as they are in a Man's. It's Cone was not so pointed, as in some Animals, but rather more obtuse and blunt, even more than a Man's. What Avicenna 
(75) Avicennae lib. 3. Fen. 2. Tract. 1. p.m. 670  remarks of the Heart of an Ape, having a double Cone, must be accidental and extraordinary: for he tells us, Et jam repertum est Cor cujusdam Simij habens duo Capita. And a little after, he denies the Heart to be a Muscle; Jam autem erravit (saith he) qai existimavit, quòd sit Lacertus, quamvis sit similium rerum in co, verùm motus ejus non est voluntarius. The person he hints at, I suppose, is Hypocrates, who so long ago asserted this; 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 (saith 
(76) Hipp. de Cora●, p.m. 270  Hypocrates) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Cor musculus est validus admodùm non Nervo, verùm Carnis spissamento. And Steno and Dr. Lower since have showed us the way of dissecting it, and have made it most evident that 'tis Muscular; and it's motion is such; but as Avicenne observes, 'tis not a voluntary motion, but involuntary. 'Tis pity we had not a better Translation of his Works; for unless it be some particular Pieces, the rest is most barbarously done, as appears from that little I have quoted of him. But to return to our pygmy; the magnitude and figure of the Heart here, was exactly the same as represented in our Scheme, where part of the Pericardium is left lying on it. Both in the right and left Auricle and Ventricle, I observed two Polypous Concretions, which plainly represented the Valves both in the Arteria Pulmonalis, and Aorta. I must confess by what I have hitherto observed of them, (and I have very frequently met with such Concretions in Humane Bodies) I cannot think these Polypus' to be any thing else, than the Size of the Blood, or the Serum coagulated after Death. The Observation I formerly gave 
(77) Vide Tho. Barthelini Acta Med. & Philos. Hafniens. Vol. 5. Obs. 30. p. 94.  of a Polypus in the Trachaea and Bronchiae of a Patient troubled with an Haemoptoe, in its kind I think remarkable.  
The Parisians Observe that the Heart of their Monkey was a great deal more pointed, than it usually is in Man; which is likewise a Character of Brutes. Yet in the interior Superficies of its Ventricles, it had that great number of Fibres and fleshy Columns, which are seen in Men. Drelincourt in his Ape observes, Cor solidum in ventriculo sinistro, laxum in dextro; praedurus Conus ejus: Serum in Pericardio salsum. Vasa Coronaria tumida, Praesertim circà Ventriculum. Adeps circà ca nullus.  
There was nothing farther, I think, that I observed peculiar in the Thorax of our pygmy. I shall now therefore follow the Dust of the Trachaea up to the Throat. And here as in Man, I observed placed the Glandula Thyroidea, upon the Cartilago Scutiformis of the Larynx; 'twas red and spongy, full of Blood vessels, not much unlike the inward Part of the Spleen, but somewhat firmer. In a Man I have always observed this part to be red. Drelincourt's Account of it in the Ape is, Glandulae Thyroideae & Cricoideae crassae sunt, & subnigricantes; & illas permeant surculi Corotidis Arteriae & Jugular is venae externae; cum surculis Nervi Recurrentis. There is no sensible account yet given of the use of this part, as I have met with: And I think that from a Comparative Survey of it in other Animals, and a strict Observation of its Structure, and the Vessels that compound it, it were not difficult to assign other uses of it more satisfactory.  
As to the Larynx in our pygmy, unless I enumerate all the Cartilages that go to form it, and the Muscles that serve to give them their Motion, and the Vessels that run to and from it, and the Membranes and Glands, there is nothing that I can further add, but only say, that I found the whole Structure of this Part exactly as 'tis in Man. And the same too I must say of the Os Hyoides. The Reflection that the Parisians make upon the observation of this, and its neighbouring Parts in the Dissection of their Monkey's, I think is very just and valuable. And if there was any further advantage for the forming of Speech, I can't but think our pygmy had it. But upon the best Enquiry, I was never informed, that it attempted any thing that way. Tho' Birds have been taught to imitate Humane Voice, and to pronounce Words and Sentences, yet Quadrupeds never; neither has this Quadru-manous Species of Animals, that so nearly approaches the Structure of Mankind, abating the Romances of Antiquity concerning them.  
The Parisians therefore tell us, That the Muscles of the Os Hyoides. Tongue, Larynx, and Pharynx, which do most serve to articulate a word, were wholly like to those of Man; and a great deal more than those of the Hand; which nevertheless the Ape, which speaks not, uses almost with as much perfection as a Man. Which demonstrates, that Speech is an Action. more peculiar to Man, and which more distinguishes him from Brutes than the Hand; which Anaxagoras, Aristotle, and Galen have thought to be the Organ which Nature has given to Man, as to the wisest of all Animals; for want perhaps of this Reflection: For the Ape is found provided by Nature of all those marvellous Organs of Speech with so much exactness, that the very three small Muscles, which do take their rise from the Apophyses Styloides, are not wanting, altho' this Apophysis be extremely small. This particularity does likewise show, that there is no reason to think, that Agents do perform such and such actions, because they are found with Organs proper thereunto; for, according to these Philosophers, Apes should speak, seeing that they have the Instruments necessary for Speech.  
I shall not engage in this Argument here, because it would be too great a digression; hereafter, it may be, I may take an occasion to do it; for this is not the only Instance in our Subject, that will justify such an Inference: tho' I think it so strong an one, as the Atheists can never answer.  
We shall take notice next of the Wula, a Part of some use too in forming the Voice; for where 'tis missing or vitiated, it much altars the sound; and even this I found in our pygmy to be altogether alike as in Man. It had those two Muscles which are in a Man, the Musculus Sphaeno-Palatinus, and the Pterigo-Palatinus seu Sphaeno-Pterigo-Palatinus; the Tendon of which last, passed over the Pterigoidal Process, which was to it like a Trochlea or Pully, and was afterwards inserted as in a Man.  
The Parisians tell us that the Uuula, which is in no other Brutes, was found in our Apes (it should be Monkeys) wholly resembling that of Man. And so Blasius, Wula in Animalibus aliis praeter hominem & simiam numquam à me observata. All that Drelincourt saith of it is, Wnla firma est & carnosa.  
The Tongue of our pygmy in all respectts, as I know of, resembled a Humane Tongue; only because 'twas somewhat narrower, it seemed longer: And under the Tongue in our pygmy we observed the Glandulae Sublinguales as in Man.  
Drelincourt observes in the Ape, Linguae basis non tantùm incumbit Hyoidi superno, sed amplectitur ejus tuber inferius posticè: Papillas habet Bovinis similes, & tunicam propriam permeantes.  
At the Root of the Tongue of each side were placed the Tonsillaes in our pygmy, as they are in a Man. They were protuberant and hard, and not so foraminulous, as usually in Man; very probably being vitiated by the Ulcer in the Cheek. For Drelincourt tells us in the Ape, Amygdalae cavae, pertusae & Scrobiculos habentes.  
The Parotides under each Ear in our pygmy were large, and of the same Figure as in Man. Parotis glandula contegit Musculum Sterno-Mastoideum, articulationem Maxillae & Musculi Pectroalis portionem, saith Drelincourt.  
The Maxillary Gland of the left side (where the Ulcer in our pygmy was) had two of its Lobes, globous and protuberant, above the Surface of the other Part, being infected and tumefied by the Ulcerous Matter. These Glands were about an Inch long, and about half an Inch broad; and there were two other small Glands a little distant from the head of the Maxillary. Glandulae salivales ad angulum Maxillae Inferioris oblongae, laxae, molles, albicantes, saith Drelincourt.  
But before I leave these Parts, there are some others I must here take notice of, in this Comparative Survey; which tho' they are not to be met with, either in our pygmy or in Man; yet are very remarkable, both in the Monkey and Apekind, viz. those Pouches the Monkeys and Apes have in their Chaps, which serve them as Repositories for to hoard up, upon occasion, food in; when they are not disposed for the present to devour it; but when there Stomaches serve them, they then take it out thence and so eat it. That the Apekind has these Pouches, Drelincourt does inform us; where he tells us, Musculus latissimus Mentum universum & buccas obtegit, quâ parts simiae saccum formant, intra quem Esculenta recondunt. Pliny is very express, That both Satyrs and Sphinxes (which I make to be of the Monkey kind) have them likewise, 
(78) Plinij Hist. Nat. lib. x. cap. 72 p.m. 466.  Conduit in Thesauros Maxillarum Cibum Sphingiorum & Satyrorurn Genus. Mox inde sensim ad mandendum manibus expromit; & quod formicis in annum solenne est, his in dies vel horas. The account the Parisians give us of this Pouch in the Mouth of the Monkeys they dissected, is this; That it was composed of Membranes and Glands, and of a great many Musculous and Car nous Fibres. It's situation was on the outside of each Jaw, reaching obliquely from the middle of the Jaw to the under part of its Angle, passing under a part of the Muscle called Longissimus. It was an Inch and an half long, and almost as broad towards its bottom. It opened into the Mouth between the Jaw and the bottom of the Gum. 'Tis into this Pouch that Apes use to put what they would keep; and it is probable that the Musculous Fibres which it has, do serve to shut and open it, to receive and put out what these Animals do there lay up in reserve. Now our pygmy having none of these Pouches in its Chaps, nor nothing like them; 'tis a notable difference both from the Monkey and Apekind, and an Agreement with the Humane.  
We should now come to discourse of the five Senses: But there is little I have at present to remark of them. For in the Organs of those of Tactus, and Gustus, there was no difference I could observe between our pygmy and a Man. As to those of Hearing and Smelling, I shall make my Observations upon them, in the Ostcology. Here therefore I shall only remark some things of the Eyes, the Organs of Seeing; and so proceed to the Brain.  
The Bony Orbit of the Eye in our pygmy was large, conical, and deep. Here we observed the Glandula Lachrymalls, and Innominate. The Bulb of the Eye in proportion to the Bulk of the Body, was rather larger than in a Man. The Iris was of a light hazel Colour: The Pupil round and large: The Crystalline Humour Spherical or Lentiformis, and almost as large as in a Man. The Optic Nerve was inserted exactly as in a Man. The Tunica Choroides rather blacker than in a Man. And whereas in Brutes, that are prono Capite, there is usually a Musculus Septimus, which from its use is called Suspensorius; in our pygmy there was none of this Muscle. All the other Muscles of the Eye, were exactly the same as in Man. This seventh Muscle is also wanting in the Ape, as appears by the figures Casserius 
(79) Jul. Casseri● Pla●ni●ni Pentaesthe●e●on, h. e. de quinque sensib●s, Vide de Organ● vi●us. Tab. 3. fig. 12, 13.  has given us of the Eye of an Ape. Neither the Parisians nor Blasius, nor Drelincourt do give us any Remarks upon this Part.  
We proceed now to the upper Venture, the Head, where at present we shall examine the Brain; that Part, which if we had proceeded according to the Method of Nature in forming the Parts, we must have begun with. For I can't but think, as 'tis the first Part we observe form, so that the whole of the Body, i. e. all the Containing Parts, have their rise from it. But I shall not enlarge upon this Argument here; it would be too great a digression, to give my Reasons for such an Hypothesis. From what is generally received, viz. That the Brain is reputed the more immediate Seat of the Soul itself; one would be apt to think, that since there is so great a disparity between the Soul of a Man, and a Brute, the Organ likewise in which 'tis placed should be very different too. Yet by comparing the Brain of our pygmy with that of a Man; and, with the greatest exactness, observing each Part in both; it was very surprising to me to find so great a resemblance of the one to the other, that nothing could be more. So that when I am describing the Brain of our pygmy, you may justly suspect I am describing that of a Man, or may think that I might very well omit it wholly, by referring you to the accounts already given of the Anatomy of an Humane Brain, for that will indifferently serve for our pygmy, by allowing only for the magnitude of the Parts in Man. Tho' at the same time I must observe, that proportionably to the Bulk of the Body, the Brain in our pygmy, was extremely large; for it weighed (the greatest part of the Dura Mater being taken off) twelve Ounces, wanting only a Dram. The Parisians remark, that in their Monkeys the Brain was large in proportion to the Body, it weighing ●●o Ounces and a half: which nevertheless was inconsiderable to ours; since our pygmy exceeded not the Stature and Bulk of the Common Monkey or Ape; so that herein, as in a great many other Circumstances, our pygmy is different from the Common Monkey and Ape, and more resembles a Man.  
I can't agree with Vesalius, that the Structure of the Brain of all Quadrupeds, my all Birds, and of some Fishes too, is the same as in Man. There is a vast difference to be observed in the formation of the Parts, that serve to compose the Brain in these various Animals. And tho' the Brain of a Man, in respect of his Body, be much larger than what is to be met with in any other Animal (for Vesalius makes the Brain of a Man to be as big as those of three Oxen) yet I think we can't safely conclude with him, that Animals, as they excel in the largeness of the Brain, so they do likewise in the Principal Faculties of the Soul: For if this be true, than our pygmy must equal a Man, or come very near him, since his Brain in proportion to his Body, was as large as a Man's. Vesalius 
(80) And. Vesalij de C●rp●ris H●man●s fa●●ca, lib. ●. cap. ●. p. 773. 774.  his words are these; Cerebri nimirùm constructione Simia, Canis, Equus, Felis, & Quadrupeda quae hactenùs vidi omnia, & Aves etiam universae, plurimaque Piscium genera, omni propemodùm ex parte Homini correspondeant: neque ullum secanti occur at discrimen, quod secùs de Hominis, quam illorum Animalium functionibus statuendum esse prae scribat. Nisi fortè quis meritò dicat Cerebri molem Homini, Perfectissimo sanè quod novimus Animali, obtigisse maximam, ejusque Cerebrum etiam tribus Boum Cerelris grandius reperiri: & dein secundum Corporis proportionem mox Simiae dein Cani magnum quoque non secus obtingere Cerebrum, quam si Animalia Cerebri tantum praestarent mole, quanto Principis Animae viribus apertius viciniúsve donata videntur.  
Since therefore in all respects the Brain of our pygmy does so exactly resemble a Man's, I might here make the same Reflection the Parisians did upon the Organs of Speech, That there is no reason to think, that Agents do perform such and such Actions, because they are found with Organs proper thereunto: for then our pygmy might be really a Man. The Organs in Animal Bodies are only a regular Compages of Pipes and Vessels, for the Fluids to pass through, and are passive. What actuates them, are the Humours and Fluids: and Animal Life consists in their due and regular motion in this Organical Body. But those Nobler Faculties in the Mind of Man, must certainly have a higher Principle; and Matter organised could never produce them; for why else, where the Organ is the same, should not the Actions be the same too? and if all depended on the Organ, not only our pygmy, but other Brutes likewise, would be too near akin to us. This Difference I cannot but remark, that the Ancients were fond of making Brutes to be Men: on the contrary now, most unphilosophically, the Humour is, to make Men but mere Brutes and Matter. Whereas in truth Man is part a Brute, part an Angel; and is that Link in the Creation, that joins them both together.  
This Digressim may be the more pardonable, because I have so little to say here, besides just naming the Parts; and to tell you (what I have already) that they were all like to those in a Man: For the Dura Mater, as a Common Membrane, firmiy secured the situation of the whole Brain strictly adhering to the Sutures of the Cranium above; before to the Crista Galli; and at the basis so strongly, that it was not easily to be separated. By it's anterior Process of the Falx, it divided the two Hemispheres of the Cerebrum; by it's transverse Process, which descended deep, just as in a Man, it separated the Cerebrum and Cerebellum: it enjoyed the same Sinus', and in all Particulars 'twas conformable to what is in a Man.  
The Pia Mater in our pygmy was a fine thin Membrane which more immediately covered the Substance of the Brain, and may be reckoned its proper Membrane; insinuating its self all along between the Anfractus of the Cerebrum and the Circilli of the Cerebellum; being copiously furnished with numerous Branches of Blood Vessels, but they appeared more on the Convex Part, then at the Basis.  
The figure of the whole Brain in our pygmy was globous; but by means of a greater jutting in of the Bones of the Orbit of the Eye, there was occasioned a deeper depression on the Anterior Lobes of the Brain in this place, than in a Man. As to other Circumstances here, I observed all Parts the same. The Anfractus of the Cerebrum were alike; as also the Substantia Corticalis and Medullaris. On the basis of the Brain, we may view all the Ten pair of Nerves exactly situated and placed as in a Humane Brain; nor did I find their Originations different, or any Particularity that was so. I shall therefore refer to the figures I have caused to be made of the Brain, and their Descriptions; where we may observe the Arteriae Carotides, Vertebrales, and Communicans, and the whole of the Blood Vessels in our pygmy to be the same as in a Man. Here was the Infundibulum, the Glandulae duae albae ponè Infundibulum, the Medulla Oblongata with its Annular Protuberance, and the beginning of the Medulla, Spinalis, just as in Man. I am here only a Nomenclator, for want of Matter to make particular Remarks upon. And the Authorrs that have hitherto furnished me with Notes, how the same Parts are in Apes and Monkeys, do fail me now; it may be, finding here nothing new or different, they are therefore silent. All the Parisians do tell us of the Brain in their Monkeys is this:  
The Brain was large in proportion to the Body: It weighed two Ounces and an half. The Dura Mater entered very far to form the Falx. The Ansractuosities of the External part of the Brain were very like those of Man in the Anteriour part; but in the inward parts before the Cerebellum, there was hardly any: they in requital were much deeper in proportion. The Apophyses, which are called Mamillares, which are great Nerves that do serve to the smelling, were not soft, as in Man, but hard and membranous. The Optic Nerves were also of a Substance harder and firmer than ordinary. The Glandula Pinealis was of a Conical figure, and its point was turned towards the binder part of the Head. There was no Rete Mirabile: for the Carotides being entered into the Brain, went by one single Trunk on each side of the edge of the seat of the Sphenoides to pierce the Dura Mater, and to be distributed into the basis of the Brain. In our Subject I thought the Anfractus of the Brain much the same, both in the anteriour and hinder part. Nor did I observe any difference in the Mamillary Processes or Optic Nerves, or Rete Mirabile, but all, as in a Man.  
The Cerebellum in our pygmy was divided by Circilli, as in Man. It had likewise the Processus Vermiformes, Dr. Willis 
(80) Willis Cerebri Anat. cap. 3. p. 22.  makes this Remark upon this Part: Cerebellum autem ipsum, in quibusvis ferè Animalibus, ejusdem figurae & proportionis, nec non ex ejusmodi lamellis conflatum reperitur. Quae Cerebrum diversimodè ab homine configuratum habent, uti Volucres & Pisces, item inter Quadrupedes Cuniculi & Mures, quorum Cerebra gyris seu convolutionibus carent; his Cerebelli species eadem, similis plicarum dispositio & Partium caeterarum compositurae existunt. 'Tis from hence he forms his noted Hypothesis, How that the Animal Spirits that are bred in the Cerebrum, do serve for Voluntary Motions; and those in the Cerebellum for involuntary.  
If we survey the inward Parts of the Brain in our pygmy, we shall here likewise find all exactly as in a Humane Body; viz. The Medullary Substance running up between the Cortical; The Concameration, the Corpus Callosum, the Fornix and its Crura the same. The Ventricles large and spacious. The Corpora Striata, the Thalami Nervorum Opticorum all alike. The Plexus Choroides the same; as were also the three Foramina as in Man; The Glandula Pinealis proportionably large. The Protuberantiae Orbiculares; i.e. The Nates and Testes in our pygmy were the same as in Man; whereas in Brutes (as Dr. Willis well observes) the Nates are always proportionably larger than in Man; but it was not so in our pygmy. The Valvula major here was very plain. The Cerebellum being divided, the Medullary Parts represented the Branches of Trees, as a Man's does. The Medulla Oblongata and Medulla Spinalis the same as the Humane; and all Parts being so conformable here to a Humane Brain, I thought it sufficient just to name them, since I have caused to be made two figures of the Brain in our pygmy from the Life, and in its Natural Bigness, where all the Parts are plainly represented to the Eye.   

THE OSTEOLOGY, OR DESCRIPTION OF THE BONES.  
WE come now to the Osteology, to give a Description of the Sceleton of our pygmy, by comparing which, with that of a Man, an Ape and a Monkey we may observe (as we have already of the other Parts) that here too, our pygmy more resembles a Man than Apes and Monkey's do; but where it differs, there 'tis like the Apekind. Galen (as I have already quoted him, vid. p. 15.) tells us that an Ape of all Creatures is the most like to a Man in the Viscera, Muscles, Arteries, Veins and Nerves, because 'tis so in the Structure of the Bones. But it may be questioned, Whether even the Structure of the Bones themselves, does not depend upon that of the Muscles: since in their first Formation, they are soft and vascular; then Cartilaginous, and in time at last are hardened into Bones. In Ricketty Children too, we find, that even the Bones are rendered crooked, by the Contraction of the Muscles, how much more, when they are tender and soft, might they be bended any way by them. But by understanding exactly the Structure of the Bones, we shall the better apprehend the Rise and Insertions of the Muscles. And for the better attaining this, Galen in the same Chaper 
(81) Galen. de Anat. administr. lib. 1. cap. 3. p. m. 29, 30  recommends to his Students, when they cannot have an opportunity of Consulting an Humane Sceleton, then to make use of those of Apes; not that he thinks them both alike, but the most like: and tells them, that it was worth their while on this account to go to Alexandria, where the Physicians taught their Scholars the Doctrine of the Bones from the Inspection of Humane Sceletons themselves, which he much prefers before Books. But since in his time Humane Sceletons were not to be had but at Alexandria, for the supplying this Defect, they might observe the Bones of Apes; and after that, they might read his Book De Ossium Naturâ, and to do as he did, visit the Sepulchers and Graves, and to observe there the Humane Bones themselves: And he tells us of two Sceletons he made use of; One that the River had washed out of a Tomb, where the Flesh was corrupted and washed away, yet the Bones held together. The other was of a Thief that was Executed, who was so much hated, that none would bury him; but the Birds picked off his Flesh, and left his Bones as a Sceleton. But saith he, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc. i.e. If yond can't happen to see any of these, dissect an Ape, carefully view each Bone, etc. Then he advises what sort of Apes to make choice of, as most resembling a Man: And concludes, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, i. e. One ought to know the Structure of all the Bones either in a Humane Body, or in an Ape's; 'tis best in both; and then to go to the Anatomy of the Muscles.  
What Galen advised, no doubt he practised himself, and observed both. But Andreas Vesalius will not allow him this: For in his great and excellent Book De Corporis Humani Fabricâ, he all along tell's us, that Galen gives us rather the Anatomy of Apes than of a Man: And in his Epistola ad Joachimum Roelants de Radice Chynae, his chief Design is to prove, that Galen never dissected a Humane Body: and that he is often mistaken in the History of the Parts, as also in their Uses; and that his Reasonings are frequently unconclusive.  
Upon the coming out of Vesalius his first Book, he was warmly opposed by Jacobus Silvius a Physician at Paris, who had formerly been Vesalius his Master in Anatomy; in a Treatise styled Depulsio Vesani cujusdane Calumniarum in Hippocratis & Galeni Rem Anatomicam. This was answered not long after by Renatus Henerus, who published another Treatise, viz. Adversus Jacobi Sylvij Depulsionum Anatomicarum Calumnias pro Andreâ Vesalio Apologia. Silvius afterwards procures a Disciple of his to write against Vesalius, who puts out, but unsuccessfully, Apologia pro Galeno contra Andream Vesalium Bruxellensem, Francisco Puteo Medico Vercellensi Authore. A Scholar of Vesalius, Gabriel Cunaeus, makes a Reply to Puteus in his Apologiae Francisci Putei pro Galeno in Anatome examen. Upon Vesalius his leaving Rome, a Disciple of his, Realdus Columbus, grew very famous for Anatomy, but ungrateful to his Master, as Vesalius complains in his Book De Radice Chynae, and his Examen Observationum Falloppij. But Gabriel Falloppius was always kinder to him, and mentions him with the greatest Honour, and calls him Divine; tho' in several things he dissents from him, which occasioned Vesalius his putting out his Observationum Falloppij Examen.  
Realdus Columbus was succeeded at Rome by Bartholomaeus Eustachius; a Man very knowing and curious in Anatomy, but extremely devoted to Galen, as one may see by this Passage; Vt uno verbo me expediam, talem eum esse (sc. Galenum) asseverem, qualem opinor neminem in posterum futurum, fuisse nunquam plane confirmo. Quare dubiis in rebus dissentire ab eo honeste non possumus, sed magis expedire, decereque putandum est, illo Duce crrare, quam his illisve Magistris hodie erudiri, nè dicam cum iis vera sentire 
(82) Barthol. Eustachij Ossium Examen, p. m. 189. . Too great a Partiality for so ingenious a Man. And it may be, this was one Reason why Vesalius so much endeavoured to lessen Galen's Authority; because the Humour of the Age was such, that nothing then was to be received, but what was to be met with in him. But certainly they are in the wrong, who, because Galen is mistaken in some things, do now wholly reject him, and lay him aside as good for nothing. The wisest and most experienced in the Art may read his Works, and in reading him, if just and not prejudiced, will acknowledge, a Satisfaction and an Advantage they have received from him.  
The Design of Bartholomaeus Eustachius in writing that Discourse of his, Ossium Examen, is to justify Galen, that he did not only dissect Apes, but Humane Bodies likewise; and that his Descriptions are conformable to the Parts in Man, and not to Apes and Monkeys. He therefore draws a Comparison between the Sceleton of an Ape and a Man; and shows wherein they differ; and how far Galen's Descriptions of those Parts are different from those in an Ape. Volcherus Coiter has likewise made the same Comparative Survey, in his Analogia Ossium Humanorum, Simiae & verae & caudatae, quae Cynocephali similis est, atque Vulpis. In most things I find Coiter to follow Eustachius, but Eustachius I think is to be preferred, because in his Annotationes de Ossibus, he quotes the Texts of Galen at large. Johannes Riolanus the Son hath wrote upon the same Argument likewise; viz. Simiae Osteologia five Ossium Simiae & Hominis Comparatio; and he being later than either of the former, and having made use of all before him, he may be thought to be the most exact.  
In giving therefore an Account of the Osteology of our pygmy, and the better to compare its Sceleton with that of a Man, and an Ape, and a Monkey, I thought I could not do better, than to insert this Discourse of Riolanus; and by Commenting upon it, to show wherein our pygmy agrees or differs. This I thought the most compendious way, and what other Observations I have, that conveniently I can't insert in my Comment, I shall add at the close of this Discourse. And tho' I may be censured by some for discoursing so largely upon an Ape, yet this Apology I have to make, That 'tis an Argument that has exercised the Pens of the greatest Anatomists we have had; and ours being one of a higher degree than the Common sort, and in so many Particulars nearer approaching the Structure of Man, than any of the Apekind, and it being so rare and uncommon, it may the more excuse me, if I endeavour to be as particular as I can. But in some measure to avoid this Fault, I shall omit Riolan's first Chapter, which is but Praefatory, and begin with the second.  

CAP. II.  
De Capitis & Faciei Ossibus.  
SImiae Caput (a) rotundum est, humano simile, cynocephali verò caput oblongius. Vtriusque (b) Suturae adeo sunt obscurae, ut earum nullum appareat vestigium. Propterea potius harmoniae dici merentur, quam suturae, quia rerum consutarum figuram non aemulantur. Attamen Volcherus Coiter suturas attribuit simiis, parum ab humanis discrepantes. In cercopitheco squammiformes desiderantur. (c) Frontis Os in calvariae basis sede, ad conjunctionem Ossis sphenoidis, transvers â potius lineâ quam sutura distinguitur: ampla oblongaque scissura homines divisum obtinent, in quam aliud Os instar cribri perforatum conjicitur, arctissimeque constringitur. At (d) Simiae Os Frontale ea in parte omnino continuum existit, & quâ nasus principium sumit, non longè ab ea sede, quae frontem constituit, alto & rotundo foramine parumper à lateribus compresso, illo foramine quod nervum visorium emittit, nonnihil ampliori, excavatum est. In ejus humiliori profundiorique sede, quatuor aut quinque alia foramina recta & lata cernuntur. In simia caudat a (e) Os Ethmoides admodum profundè in nares descendit, paulò infra eam regionem ex qua nasus exoritur. Harmoniâ per medium dividitur, & utrimque ab Osse frontis, quod etiam profundèr descendit effingi videtur. (f) Superficies fellae Sphenoidis ad narium principium in Osse frontis non est plana & aequalis ut in homine, sed est eminentissima. In posteriori sellae eminentia glandulam excipiente, reperitur for a men exsculptum. In sellae (g) hujus substantia nulla latet cavitas ut homine. (h) Cavitates illae quae in apophysibus pterygoideis exsculptae sunt, maximae & profundae apparent, ay Ossa, Bregmatis, & Temporum, nec intus, nec foris, ullam demonstrant divisionem, quasi ex unico continuatoque Osse constarent. (k) In Osse temporum apophysis Mastoidis deest, Styloidis exigua est. (l) Cavitas auris videtur unica, orbiculatim in plures gyros striata, nec tria Ossicula Malleolus, Incus, & Stapes reperiuntur, quibus aliorum animantium aures instructae sunt, si credimus Casserio, sed ego semper observavi.  
Os Zygωma (m), quâ parte ab Osse orbitario procedit, crassum & robustum est, atque ejus in medium lineâ potius quam suturâ distinguitur. In homine veròtenue existit, & suturâ dirimitur.  
Simiae Fancies (n) rotunda est, cynocephali oblonga & antrorsum protuberans. Ossa verò Maxillae superioris respondent humanis. (o) Suturae sunt harmoniis, sive rimis similes, potissimum ea quae medium palatum intersecat. Sed pecutliaris sutura notatur, ab inferiore orbita incipiens, secundum longitudinem maxillae ad caninum dentem cujusque lateris prorepit, ipsumque palatum dirimit.  
Maxilla inferior (p) integra est, nullâ lineâ in mento dissecta, brevissima est corporis proportione, ita ut ex omni animantium genere nullum breviorem habeat, excepto homine. Extremitas quae cavitati temporum articulatur, est condylωdis, ut in homine. Quare non est gynglymoides haec articulatio, ut scripsit Volcherus Coiter.  
(q) Simia in dentibus caninis & molaribus differt ab homine. Caninos quidem habet dentes humanis similes, in unaquaque maxilla binos, qui utrimque assident & accumbunt incisoribus. Singulas radices ut incisores habent, sed altiùs infixas robustioresque, minùs etiam ex anteriore parte, quam posteriore pressas & angustas. Ac simia cynocephalos dentes caninos longiores prominentioresque, qiàm vera simia obtinet. Molarium dentium numerus in homine incertus est, authore Galeno: saepius enim in utraque maxilla sunt sexdecim, interdum viginti, nonnunquam viginti quatuor. At simiae semper certus ac definitus molarium numerus. Differunt quoque Maxillares simiae ab humanis, in figura externa, & radicum numero, quamvis enim priores duo molares simiae, ab humanis, aut nihil, aut certè parum discrepent, quia in simia primus inferior unum tantùm apicem obtinet: Attamen in posteriorum dentium mensis, secundum longitudinem maxillarum, profunda admodum linea exsculpta est. Quant lineam altera etiam transversa, quae in quinto dente simiae non caudatae gemina est, intrinsecus & extrinsecus ad gingivam usque protractata intersecat. Quo fit, ut singuli ejusmodi dentes eminentias, ut plurimum quatuor in angulis (nam quinto six sunt) tres verò foveas in medio habentes, duarum serrarum mutuò sibi occurrentium modo committantur: quod profectò accuratissius Author Galenus explicare minimè praetermisisset, si molares simiarum descripsisset.  
Os Hyoides (r) humano firmè simillimum existit, praeterquam quod medium ipsius ossiculum amplius est, quam in homine, & posteriore sede insigniorem ostendit cavitatem, gibbis ipsius laryngis partibus invehitur, fitque propugnaculum cartilaginis scutiformis. In illa enim lata oblongaque apophysi, interiores partes Ossis hyoidis efformat, quae deorsum adeo producitur, ut instar clypei cartilagini thyroidi obtendatur.  
(a) The Cranium of our pygmy was round and globous, and it seemed to be three times as big as the Head of a Common Monkey; for, that I might the better compare them, I procured the Sceleton of a Monkey, which I found was exactly the length or that of our pygmy: though at the same time we shall see, that in several of the Parts, 'twas vastly different. For measuring the Head of our pygmy by a Line drawn round from the Nose, over the Orbit of the Eyes, to the Occiput or hinder part of the Head, and so to the Nose again, I observed 'twas Thirteen Inches. The Cranium of the Monkey measured there only Nine Inches and a quarter. The girth of the Head of the pygmy, from the Vertix round by the Ears to the Vertix again, was Eleven Inches and an half: in the Monkey 'twas only Seven Inches and an half. The longitudinal Diameter of the Cranium of the pygmy was Four Inches, of the Monkey Two Inches and a quarter. The latitudinal Diameter of the Cranium of the pygmy was Three Inches and above a quarter; of the Monkey a little above Two Inches. The profundity of the Cranium of the pygmy, from the Vertix to the Foramen where the Medulla Spinalis passes out, was about Three Inches and a quarter; in the Monkey Two Inches. So that in the largeness of the Cranium, the pygmy much exceeds the Monkey, as also Apes, and more resembles a Man.  
(b) The Sutures in our pygmy perfectly resembled those in an Humane Cranium; The Sutura Coronalis Sagittalis, and Lambdoides being all serrated or indented very curiously, as in Man. In the Lambdoidal Suture I observed Nine Ossa triquetra Wormiana. In the Cranium of a Monkey I found the Coronary Suture for the most part to be Harmonia, and only for a little space to be serrated towards the middle, where it meets the Sagittal Suture. The Sagittal Suture here was indented throughout. The Lambdoidal Suture, as extended from the Sagittal of each side for about half an Inch, was serrated; then the Suture disappeared, and there was form here a rising ridge of the Cranium, which was continued to that Apophysis which makes the hinder part of the Os Zygomaticum. There was no such bony ridge in the Cranium of the pygmy. In the Monkey too I saw the Squammous Sutures very plain, tho' Riolan denies them; which likewise in our pygmy was very apparent. Our pygmy therefore in the Structure of the Sutures exactly resembled a Humane Cranium, and more than Apes and Monkeys do: For in them the Coronary and Lambdoidal Sutures were only in part serrated; and they had no Ossa triquetra Wormiana.  
(c) In our pygmy there was an Os Cribriforme, as in Man; 'twas about half an Inch long, and a quarter of an Inch broad; in it I numbered about Thirty Foramina; here was likewise that long ridge, (which is called Crista Galli) as in a Man, to which the Dura Mater was fastened.  
(d) In the Cranium of the Monkey there was no Crista Galli; and where the Os Cribriforme should have been, there was a hollow Passage which led towards the beginning of the Nostrils, at the end of which there might be a small Os Cribriforme perforated with four or five holes. But this Part appeared very different from the Structure of a Humane Skull, as likewise from our pygmy; which was occasioned chiefly by the great bunching in of the Bones of the Orbit of the Eye, tho' our pygmy too had these Bones more protruded in, than they are in a Humane Cranium.  
(e) This appeared more in the Cranium of a Monkey than in our pygmy; tho' here too 'twas somewhat more than in a Man's Skull.  
(f) The Sella Equina in our pygmy was exactly like a Man's. In a Monkey I observed it more rising and higher. In the middle of the Sella Turcica seu Equina of our pygmy, I observed a Foramen; and the same I found in a Humane Cranium ay have by me.  
(g) In our pygmy I did not observe those two Cavities under the Sella Turcica which are to be met with in a Humane Skull. But the Bone here was very spongy and cavernous, and might answer the same end, tho' not form perfectly alike.  
(h) These Cavities in our pygmy, were nothing so large as they are in a Monkey, but conformable to the Structure of this Part in an Humane Skull. And in our pygmy too, I observed the Pterigoidal Processes as they are in Man, but I did not find them in the Monkey.  
ay The Ossa Bragmatis and Temporum in our pygmy were very plainly distinguished by an indented Suture. In the Cranium of the Monkey these Bones were divided by a lineal Suture called Harmonia.  
(k) The Mastoid and Styloforme Process in our pygmy were very little, yet more than in the Monkey; but herein our pygmy rather imitates the Apekind.  
(l) Because I would not spoil the Sceleton, I did not examine the Organ of the Inward Ear: But am wholly inclined to Riolan, who tells us he always found those Three little Bones, the Malleolus, Incus, and Stapes there; and no doubt but they are to be met with in our pygmy. Tho' Casserius therefore thinks Galen does not mention them, and never observed them, because they are not to be found in Apes: But Riolan tells us the contrary.  
(m) The Os Zygomaticum in our pygmy was not half so big or large as in the Cranium of the Monkey; herein therefore our pygmy more resembles a Man.  
(n) Tho' the Face of our pygmy was rounder than an Ape's, as that is than a Monkey, and a Monkey's more than the Cynocephalus, yet 'twas not altogether so much as a Man's; the upper Jaw being proportionably longer and somewhat more protuberant. The Bones of the Nose too in our pygmy more resembled the Apekind, than the Humane, being flat and simous; hence simia; and not protuberant and rising as in Man.  
(o) The Suture of the Palate in our pygmy was just the same as in a Man. In a Monkey I observed that peculiar Suture Riolan mentions, but did not find it in the pygmy: Only in the Palate of the pygmy I observed a Suture, not from the Dens Caninus, as was in the Monkey, but from the Second of the Dentes Incisores.  
(p) In our pygmy the under Jaw was perfectly closed at the Mentum, as 'twas in the Monkey; and 'tis so in a Man. Galen 
(83) Galen de Anat. Admini ●●. lib. 4. cap. 3. p. 94.  tells us, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. i e. That of all Animals a Man hath the shortest Chin, or under Jaw, in proportion to his Body; then next to a Man, an Ape, than a Lynx, than Satyrs, and after these the Cynocephali. And I may add, of all Apes, our pygmy hath the shortest. The Articulation of the under Jaw in our pygmy was Condyloides, as 'tis in Man; and not Gynglymoides, as Volcherus Coiter and Barthol. Eustachius observe.  
(q) Our pygmy had in each Jaw before, four Dentes Incisorcs; then following them, of each side a Dens Caninus; then after them of each side, Four Dentes Molares, in all Fourteen Teeth in each Jaw, in both Twenty eight. But our Subject being young, I observed that all the Teeth were not perfectly grown out of the Jawbone, and could perceive some of the Molares, that still lay hid there, or were not much exerted. In a Monkey in each Jaw there were two Dentes Incisores before; then four Dentes Canini, two of each side; then eight Dentes Molares, four of each side. The Number of the Teeth in each Jaw, and in the whole the same as in the pygmy: only the Monkey had four Dentes Canini in each Jaw, the pygmy had but two, as in a Man: Or at least in the Monkey, the two first of the Canini seemed to be Amphibious, between an Incisor and Caninus; being not so broad as the two first Incisores, nor so much exerted or extended as the two other Canini were. In the number of the Teeth our pygmy imitated more the Apekind than the Humane: But in the Structure of them, more the Humane than the Apekind; for the Mensa or Supersicies of the Melares, was not so serrated as the Monkey's, but liker Humane Teeth.  
I have omitted the Printing the next Paragraph in Ri●lan, because I would not be tedious: And for the same reason, do not here particularly describe each Bone in the Head and Jaws of our pygmy; for where I do not remark otherwise, 'tis to be understood, that all those Parts are the same in a Man, our pygmy and the Apekind.  
(r) There was nothing particular that I observed in the Os Hyoides of our pygmy that was different from that of a Man's.   

CAP. III.  
De Spina & Ossibus & Adnexis.  
SIMIAE (a) Cervix brevis est, septem vertebris extructa, corpora vertebrarum anteriori parte non sunt rotunda ut homini, sed plana. Posticae apophyses spinosae non sunt longae, & bifidae, sed breves, simplices, & acutae. In prima (b) vertebra, nullum spinae vestigium apparet, imò nulla sentitur asperitas, in anteriore parte corporis primae vertebrae humanae obtusa quaedam eminentia apparet, quae in simia magis extuberat, & in mucronem producitur. Quod si vertebras & spinas breves habet simia, (c) apophyses transversas obtinuit longiores, atque ad anteriora magis, quam in homine reftexas. Imprimis verò sexta colli vertebra, quae hunc processum prae caeteris insignem adepta est, eumque bifidum, magisque recurvum & aduncum, quam in aliis vertebris. Hic autem spondylus sextus maximus est, propter illas transversas apophyses grandiores, in simia caudata minor est. Septimi spondyli transversae apophyses simplices & tenues, in caudata simia bifidae, & satis longae existunt, quae licet in homine simplices appareant, sexto tamen crassitie non  
(d) Prima simiae vertebra ad finem processus transversi ascendentis utrimque foramen habet, ad nervum transmittendum, quo humana caret vertebra, septima colli vertebra in homine saepius est perforata: Vnde evenit, quod transversi processus hujus vertebrae non sunt similes apophysibus tranversis colli, sed potius thoracis apophysibus transversis assimilantur. (e) Vertebrarum dorsi corpora parum ab humanis differunt, neque apophyses multùm dissimiles sunt, exceptis rectis ultimarum duarum vertebrarum, quae rectiores sunt in simiis, paulùm deorsum inclinat in hominibus. In (f) postremis vertebris dorsi reperiuntur quatuor infernae apophyses articuli gratiâ constructae. In humanis vertebris duae tantùm notantur, quas etiam in lumborum vertebris observabis. (g) In simia decima dorsi vertebra, infra suprave suscipitur, at in homine est duodecima.  
(h) Lumbi, inquit Galenus, in simiis sunt longiores quam in hominibus, si pro ratione reliquarum partium hoc aestimare velis, nam in homine quinque vertebrae lumbos efsormant, in simiis non secus, quam in aliis quadrupedibus sex adsunt. ay Harum vertebrarum processus ab humanis differunt. Siquidem transversi in homine teretes sunt & oblongi, nonnihil in exteriora conversi, costularum vicem gerentes. In simia sunt ampli, intrò spectantes, & instar squammae tenues: figurâ caudam hirundinis referunt, aut cornu retortum, quod oblongo acutoque mucrone erigitur, ac sursum vergit. Ac tertia lumbi vertebra primò incepit transversum consequi processum, qui brevis est. Reliqui subsequentes longiores existunt. (k) Posteriores processus spinosi non sunt recti, sed supernè spectant, atque excipiuntur à supernis incumbentibus vertebris, quae hiatu sive scissura triangulari inter duos transversales processus existente, dum in posteriora simia spinam inflectit, eosdem transversales excipiunt.  
(l) Observandum venit in homine circa radices infernas transversarum apophysewn lumbarium, atque etiam duarum infirmarum thoracis, quaedam tubercula magnitudine figuraque mespilorum nucleos referentia saepius reperiri, quae cum in canibus & simiis non habeantur, suspicari posset aliquis vicem illarum quas paulò antè descripsi proceritatum in homine tenere.  
(m) Os Sacrum spinae fundamentum in homine, ex tribus vertebris conflatur: In simiis ex duabus tantum componitur, quibus ilium Ossa copulantur.  
(n) Simiae longior est Coccyx, quam homini, pluribus ideo constructus Ossibus, quae juxta commissuram Ossis Sacri perforata sunt, medullamque continent, atque nervos antrorsum & retrorsum emittunt, quae omnia desunt in coccyge hominis: cur autem simia vero coccyge caruerit, rationem reddit Fallopius, in Observat. Anatomicis.  
(o) Homo, inquit Galenus, ex omnibus animalibus Costas curvissimas habet, propterea latissimum pectius obtinuit. Simiae latius caeteris pectus datum, sed humano angustius.  
(p) Porro simia, tam caudata, quam non caudata, costas viginti sex prae se fert, cum in homine tantùm viginti quatuor reperiantur. Harum utrimque sunt octo verae costae, in homine septem, quae per articulum sterno committuntur. Quinque vero nothae costae non desinunt in perfectam cartilaginem versus sternum invicem constrictae, ut in homine, sed osseae magis quam cartilaginosae, à se mutuò disjunguutur. Costae in simia, tam caudata, quam non caudata, spatiis vertebrarum intermediis inseruntur: at in hominibus magis corporibus vertebrarum attexuntur.  
(q) Sternum octo constat Ossibus rotundis, quorum primum aliquantisper preminet, supra cartilaginum duarum primarum conjunctionem, quae duae cartilagines videntur amplexari supericre parle primum os sterni. Cartilagines ●●tarum commissuris Ossium sterni accrescunt, duae ultimae concurrunt simul in articulationem ultimi & penultimi ossis sterni. Vltimum os sterni xiphoidem ●artilaginem referens, impensè longum est, & teres.  
(r) Simia quoad scapulas & claviculas homini maxime similis est, authore Oaleno. Clavicula incipiens à primo sterni osse ad medium costae rectà procedit, inde ad acromion usque multùm curvata intumescit: huic articulationi interjectum est ossiculum, quod in homine ad decimum octavum annum & ultrà, appendix existit: at in simia, nec istud ossiculum, nec illius vestigium ullum apparet, imò pars illa robustissima est.  
(a) In our pygmy there were seven Vertebrae of the Neck, as there are in a Man, and an Ape too; but they were short, making in length about two Inches; and seemed more to imitate those in Apes, being flatter before, and not so round as in Man. And their Spines, tho' they were longer, and more obtuse, and not so acute as in Monkeys; yet they were not beside, as they are in Man.  
(b) In the first Vertebra of the Neck in the pygmy there was no Spine, but an Asperity; in a Man there is a small Spine. And before, 'twas like to the Humane, having an Obtuse Eminence, and not running to a Mucro, as in the Ape and Monkey. The Dens of the second Vertebra in the pygmy was partly Cartilaginous.  
(c) I did not observe in the pygmy the Transverse Apophyses to be longer, nor to be reflected more forward, nor the sixth Vertebra to be larger than the others; nor the seventh Vertebra, to be any thing different from the same in Man; but in all these Circumstances, our pygmy seemed to imitate the Structure of the same Parts in Man, more than does the Apekind.  
(d) Those Foramina observed in the Vertebrae of the Neck of Apes, were wanting in our pygmy, who herein imitated the Humane Sceleton.  
(e) I did not observe any difference between the Vertebrae of the Back of our pygmy and those of a Man's; nor what Riolan remarks of the Apophyses rectae of the two last Vertebrae.  
(f) In the lower Vertebrae of the Back of the pygmy, I observed but two Apophyses infernae, as 'tis in a Humane Sceleton: in a Monkey there are four Apophyses there.  
(g) Our pygmy if Riolan's account be true, is different both from the Ape and Man too; for here 'twas the thirteenth Vertebra, quae infra, suprave suscipitur.  
(h) The Vertebrae of the Loins in our pygmy were about two Inches long; and their number the same, as in Man, viz. five; and not six, as are in Apes and Monkeys: But the Os Ilium of each side does ascend so high, as to include the two lower Vertebrae; which is not so in Man.  
ay The Transverse Processes of the Lumbal Vertebrae in the pygmy, were round and thick, as in Man; and not thin and slat, or broad, as in the Monkey.  
(k) The Spines of the Lumbal Vertebrae in the pygmy, were straight, as in a Man; and not bending upwards, as in the Ape and Monkey kind.  
(l) I am apt to think these Tubercula are in our pygmy; but our Subject being young, and several of the Parts not yet hardened into Bones but Cartilaginous; I was not fully satisfied herein, and do leave it as a Quaere.  
(m) Riolan in this account is mistaken, nor is he here consistent with himself, as to what he writes of this part in other places. Job. Philip. Ingrassias 
(84) Comment. in Galen. de Ossibus, Cap. x. Text. ●. pag. m. 18●  who has wrote a most learned and incomparable Comment upon Galen's Book de Ossibus, tells us; Amplum Sacrumve Os in Homine sex vel ad minus quinque ex Ossibus constat. Galenus tamen, Simiarum Canumve Sceletos dissecans, interdum quatuor ex Ossibus componi inquit. Sub Osse inquam Sacro largiùs sumpto, Coccygem quoque comprehendens: (quem Coccygem pro uno Osse, ut in praesenti textu facit, tanquam quartum adjungens assumpsit, à Sacro interim distinguens) saepius autem tribus duntaxat propriè sumptum Os Sacrum à Coccyge distinctum expressit, uti nunc etiam facit: unde tribus ex partibus constructum esse ait, tanquam ex propriis Vertebris. So Falloppius and others do make the Os Sacrum in a Man to consist of six Bones, sometimes five. In our pygmy the Os Sacrum was composed of five Bones: But in the Sceleton of a Monkey I observed but: three Bones or Vertebrae which did make up the Os Sacrum.  
But as our pygmy in the number of the Vertebrae which composes the Os Sacrum, did imitate the Humane kind; so in other respects 'twas much liker to the Sceleton of Apes and Monkeys: For the Os Sacrum here, was nothing so dilated and spread, as 'tis in Man; but contracted and narrow as 'tis in Apes; and very remarkably different from the Humane Sceleton; as 'twas likewise in the Spines and Processes which more resembled the Apekind.  
(n) The Os Coccygis in our pygmy consisted of four Bones, as 'tis in an Humane Sceleton, and these not perforated. In the Ape, and especially in the Monkey, there are more Bones, and those perforated, as Riolan describes them. Hence Julius Pollux styles it, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Perforatus Coccyx. This Os Coccygis makes a little bunching out of the Skin in the pygmy, as I have represented it in my second figure, and is remarked before (vide pag. 14.) but in Man, 'tis not protuberant. What Riolan observes out of the Nubian Geography, of a Nation in the Isle of Namaneg, having Tails, I think is fabulous; unless they be Monkeys, or of that kind: I am certain that Story of the Kentish Longtails he mentions, is utterly false, tho' he modestly expresses himself, fabulosum puto. His words are these: In Insula Namaneg Maris Orientalis, Gens est caudata, ex Geographiâ Arabicâ Nubiensi pag. 70. fabulosum puto quod de Anglis Caudatis referunt Historici, quibus ob injuriam D. Thomac Cantuariensi illatam, Deus Coccygem instar Caudae produxit 
(85) Riolan. Encheirid. Anat. lib. 6. cap. 16. p. 451. .  
(o) In our pygmy the Ribs were altogether as much curved, as in an Humane Sceleton; and it was as full chested as a Man.  
(p) In the number of the Ribs our pygmy imitated the Apekind: for it had thirteen of a side, six and twenty in all: In a Man there is but twenty four, tho' sometimes there has been observed thirteen of a side. As to the other Particulars that Riolan mentions, viz. the number of the Costae verae, and the ossious Extremes of the Nothae, and the Articulation of the Ribs, herein our pygmy more resembled a Man: for it had but seven Costae verae that were articulated to the Sternum; and the Extremes of the Nothae were Cartilaginous, not Ossious, and continued to the Sternum as in an Humane Sceleton; and the Articulation of the Ribs was more on the Body of the Vertebrae, than in the Interstices. Drelincourt is mistaken in mentioning but twelve Ribs in the Ape, of a side, or his was different.  
(q) Jo. Philippus Ingrassias 
(86) Jo. Phil. Ingrassias Comment. in Galen, d● Ossibus, Cap. 12. Text. 1. pag. m. 190.  makes eight Bones in the Sternum of Infauts; and tells us, that in time these Bones do coalesce, and grow sewer. Galen makes seven Bones in the Sternum, according to the number of the Costae verae that insert their Cartilages into them. But the eighth Bone Ingrassias saith, is for the Cartilago Ensiformis. In the Sternum of our pygmy I numbered seven Bones, the two last being small and partly Cartilaginous; and here the Cartilages were inserted at the Commissures and Joynings of the Bones of the Sternum. The Cartilago Ensiformis was long and roundish. The whole of the Sternum of our pygmy much more resembled the Humane Sceleton, than the Monkey's, being much broader and larger, and as far as I observed just alike.  
(r) The Scapula of our pygmy, tho' in most respects it resembled a Man's, yet I thought it did not so much, as a Monkey's; for it seemed narrower, and the Basis was proportionably longer. But this I suppose might happen in preparing the Sceleton by paring away the Cartilages (for the Creature was young) which in a longer time would have hardened into a Bone. So likewise that Process which receives the Clavicula called Acromion, was Cartilaginous, as was likewise the End of the Processus Coracoides, and of the Cervix itself, which last received the head of the Shoulder Bone. So that as yet there was not a Sinus form here for the receiving it; but that Extreme was flatter than usually and plain; nor was there that Sinus under the Spine, as in an adult Humane Scapula.  
I observed no difference in the Figure and Structure of the Clavicula in our pygmy and in a Man. Nor did I observe that Bone Riolan mentions, but a large Cartilege which did conjoin that Extreme of the Clavicula to the Acromium, which in time might become long; this Cartilege was about a quarter of an Inch long.   

CAP. IU.  
De Artubus Superioribus.  
(a) SIMIAE & Hominis Omoplatae omnino similes sunt.  
(b) Humerus simiae non admodum ab humano differt, in caudata dissimilis est juxta inferius caput, quod cubito articulatur. Hac enim regione re●●ectitur ab exterior parte introrsum, atque in illa flexura canaliculum acquirit ex opposito latere pervium.  
(c) Cubiti Ossa duo in utraque simia humanis respondent.  
(d) Carpus simiae non valde differt ab humano, obtinuit tamen nonum os, de quo sic loquitur Eustachius: Hoc ossiculum non in prima brachialis acie est locatum, sed tertio ejusdem aciei ossi incumbit, atque inter ea quae indicem & medium digitum sustinent seipsum inserit: vocatur à Galeno 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, hoc osse videntur carere simiae caudatae, sed ejus loco adipiseuntur os peculiar, quod carpi ossi cubito substrato annectitur, & satis longe protuberat. Deinde instar cornicis versus manus volam incurvatur, atque cum processu ossis carpi radio articulati, magnam cavitatem musculorum tendinibus efformat.  
(e) Metacarpij, Digitorumque Ossa simiae, tam caudatae quam non caudatae, parum admodum ab humanis ossibus discrepant. Simia quidem magnum manus digitum Pollicem, mutilum obtinet, & curtum, & indici propinquum, non oppositum, instar alt●rius manus, ut in homine: Reliqui digiti muliò sunt minores digitis pedum.  
(a) I have already mentioned that the Scapula or Omoplato in our pygmy did not seem so slike a Man's, as a Monkey's did; nor does it appear so in my figure; not but that I think 'tis so, when adult; and its Cartilages are hardened into a Bone: but my figure only represents what was now form into a Bone, and without the Cartilages, which in time would have become bony.  
(b) The Os Humeri in our pygmy was a little above five Inches long, just the same length with the Thigh Bone, and not altogether so thick. That end which was joined to the Bones of the Cubit, was about an Inch and a half broad. I observed here, upon the flexure of the Cubit forwards, that in the Os Humeri there was a deep sinus, and the Bone so thin here, that it would admit the Rays of Light through; but 'twas not pervious as Ri●la● saith it is in a Monkey; nor did I observe it so, in the Sceleton of a Monkey.  
(c) In the pygmy the Bones of the Cubit were exactly like a Man's. The Vlva was five Inches long; the Radius five Inches and an half. They had large Cartilages at both Extremes.  
(d) So likewise the Bones of the Carpus in the pygmy resembled those of a Man. I did not observe here that ninth Bone described by Eustachius. For indeed in our Subject, there were but four in each Carpus, that were ossified: the others were only Cartilaginous.  
(e) In the Hand, our pygmy resembled the Ape and Monkey-kind. For tho' the Bones of the Metacarp and Fingers were like to those of a Man; yet the Thumb was much smaller, than the other Fingers, and shorter, and liker the Apekind. This Galen frequently takes notice of. 'Tis true, the other Fingers were much larger in our pygmy than in the Apekind, and more resembling those of a Man, so that I was surprised to see them so big: but the Thumb, which the Ancients and Galen call 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and Hippocrales 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, in our Subject was so disproportionate and little, that as Galen remarks 
(87) Galen de usu Partium, lib. 1. cap. 22. p.m. 310. , any one that should view it, would think that it was but a ridiculous imitation of Mankind, and nothing answering to its Names. And in the precedent Chapter he vigorously disputes against the Epicure●ns and the Followers of As●lepiades; and from the admirable Structure and wise Contrivance of all the Parts, and particularly the Tendons that go to the Fingers; he confutes their Hypothesis as vain, and hath this noble Fyiphenema, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. e. Vos, per Deos immortales, cum nihil habeatis, quod in tot Insertionibus reprehendatis, neque Tendonum molem, neque locum, neque Insertionis modum, sed in his omnibus mirabilem quandam Proportionem videatis, unâ solâ in utroque magno digito similitèr perditâ (& hoc non sine ratione, quod eâ non egebamus) temerè dicitis & absque Arte omnia hujusmodi facta fuisse.  
The Bones of the Metacarpus in the pygmy were an Inch and three quarters long. The two last Joints of the Thumb were scarce an Inch long; the first Joint of the Thumb was a little above an Inch. The Forefinger was two Inches and almost an half: The middle Finger, two Inches and three quarters. The third or Ringfinger was two Inches and half a quarter; and the little Finger was not full two Inches long. The first Joint of the fore and middle Finger was above a quarter of an Inch broad, and the Girth of each about was an Inch. The pygmy therefore in the Fingers, having them so large and thick, imitated a Man; but in the Thumb, which was so slender and small, it resembled the Apekind.   

CAP. V.  
De Artubus Inferioribus.  
OSSA (a) Ilium in utraque simia, tam caudata quà; m non caudata, toto habitu, & figura distant ab humanis: dehiscunt enim eo in loco, ubi pubis Ossa esse debebant, atque omnino privantur Osse pubis: propterea ad velociter currendum ineptae sunt. Ischij articulus planè dissimilis est ab illo hominis, ut notavit Galenus.  
(b) Ea est Femoris structura in simia, ut eam stare rectam non permit at, nec instar hominis corpus suum erigere, aut incedere, ne quidem sedere, quia femoris caput obliquim in articulo coxae, committitur. (c) In homine cervix rotundi capitis femoris oblonga est, & sensim obliquè deorsum ducitur. In simia verò brevis, & propemodum transversa visitur. Sed femoris cervice, apophyses duae, trochanteres dictae, in simia similes sunt humanis, verum in illa, ut in caudata minores.  
(d) Patella utriusque simiae manifestum discrimen ab humana demonstrat: est enim oblonga, non rotunda, Quamvis autem extri●seus gibba sit, atque intus cava, nihilominus longè aliter se habet quam in homine. Nam secundum ipsius longitudinem recurvatur, excavaturque adeo, ut nihil propemodum in medio emineat, curvo aduncoque ejus sinu naviculam quandam elegantissimè referre videatur. In caudata simia patella videtur ex duobus Ossibus mutuò adnatis constructa.  
(e) Tibiae utrumque Os in utraque simia humanis Ossibus simillimum est.  
(f) Simiae Pes ab humano maximè discrepat, est enim oblongus latusque homini, angustus brevisque simiae, pro ratione corporis, pedisque digiti longiores sunt, sed metatarsi Ossa breviora, calcaneum verò angustius, & anteriori in parte qua cum Osse, cyboide committitur, latius evadens, magisque inibi longum, quam retrò, impedit ne simia diu erecta, & stare, & ambulare queat. Astragalus Galeno tenuis non efficitur, sed manens sublimis, Oss● scaphoidi conjungitur, quod simiae repugnat, in qua astragalus humilem, oblongam atque tenuem cervicem habet. Planta in simia ex quatuor Ossibus componitur. Pollex ex tribus, inquit Eustachius. Quamvis Volcherus in caudata simia nuliam observarit disserentiam, quâ discreparent ab homine. (g) Digitorum notissima est discrepantia in homine, ut notavit Galenus, omnes una serie disponuntur, brevissimoque spatio discreti, multo minores sunt, quam qui in manu habentur. Nam quantò pes summa manu major est, tanto illius digiti manus digitis sunt minores.  
(h) Accedit quod pollex longitudine indici aequalis est, quem dupla crassitudine superat, talisque est quatuor digitorum commensuratio, ut ab indice ad minimum semper deficiat longitudo: & secundae aciei Ossa, si indicem exceperis, breviora sunt iis, quae in tertia phalange reponuntur. Haec omnia in ●traque simia aliter se habent, omnes enim pedis digiti insigni spatio discreti sunt, multoque longiores, quam in manu existunt: Pollex caeteris digitis brevior tenuiorque est, atque diversam ab aliis positionem sortitur, dehiscit etiam, ut pollex in manu valde ab indice. Digiti pedis simiae, manus humanae digitorum seriem imitantur, est enim pollex in pede simiae reliquis digits brevior, inter alios quatuor digitos ut in manu, medius omnium longissimus.  
(a) There was no Part I think in the whole Sceleton where the pygmy differed more from a Man, than in the Structure and Figure of the Os Ilium: for in a Humane Sceleton those Bones are spread broad, forming a Sinus or Hollow on the Inside. In the pygmy they were proportionably longer and narrower, and not so Concave on the inside, but in all respects Conformable to the Shape of the same Bones in the Ape and Monkey-kind. But why Riolan should deny the Os Pubis to be in Monkeys, I see no reason; for naturally there is not that Dehiscence or Separation of the Os Pubis, as Coiter has given in his Figure of the Sceleton of a Monkey, and as he describes it; from whence I suppose Riolan borrows this Descriprion: for in the Sceletons of two Monkeys I observed these Bones were joined together, and in the pygmy they are closed as in a Man. When the Cartilege that joins them is divided, they will part asunder; but otherwise they are firmly knit together. This therefore is no reason, why they should not run fast: and the contrary was observed of the pygmy that it did so.  
The length of the Os Ilium, from its Spine to its Conjunction with the Os Ischium, was three Inches; where 'twas broadest, 'twas an Inch and half; where narrowest, but three quarters of an Inch. The Os lschium was an Inch and three quarters long; the Os Pubis was an Inch long.  
(b) I did not observe any difference in the Structure of the Thighbone in our pygmy from that in Man; nor was its Articulation or Insertion of its Head into the Acetabulum, more oblique than in Man. So that from this Articulation, I saw no reason why it should not walk upright and sit; our pygmy did both: When I saw it, 'twas just a little before its death; and tho' 'twas weak and feeble, it would stand, and go upright.  
The length of the Thighbone in the pygmy was five Inches: The girth of it in the middle an Inch and three quarters; where 'twas joined to the Bones of the Leg, 'twas an Inch and almost an half broad.  
(c) The Neck of the Head of the Thighbone in our pygmy was not different in its length, as I did observe, from that of a Man's, but the same proportionably; as were likewise the two Apophyses, called Trochanteres.  
(d) The Patella in our pygmy was not yet ossified. As much as I could discover of its shape, it was the same as in Man; round and not long; and but one Bone, and not two, as Riolan describes it in the Monkey. In the Sceletons of the Monkeys I used, these Bones were lost, so that I did not observe them.  
(e) The two Bones in the Leg, the Tibia and the Fibula were just the same in the pygmy as in Man; and their Articulations were alike: The Tibia was four Inches long; the Fibula was a little shorter. The girth of the Tibia in the middle was about an Inch; of the Fibula, about half an Inch.  
(f) What makes the foot of the pygmy seem different from a Man's, is chiefly the length of the Toes, and the Structure of the great Toe. In other respects, it has a great resemblance with it. For the Bones of the Metatarsus here, seemed proportionably as long as in Man. The Os Calcis, Calcaneum or Heel-bone was not narrow, but broad; and forewards, where 'twas joined to the Os Cuboide or Cubiforme, not broader, nor longer than behind; where it juts out so far, as sufficiently secures its standing or walking erect. The Astragalus I did not observe different from a Man's. The Scaphoides or Naviculare here was Cartilaginous. If one reckons three Joints in the great Toe, than there can be but four Bones in the Planta Pedis, or Metatarsus; which with Eustachius I am more inclined to, because really this Part performs upon any occasion the use of an Hand too; and the great Toe, (like the Thumb in the Hand) stands off from the range of the other Fingers. Besides, I observed a difference in the Colour in the Bones of the Metatarsus and the Toes: for the Colour of the Toes was white and opace; the Colour of the Bones of the Metatarsus was like to that of the Cartilages, and more transparent. Now all the three Bones in the great Toe were of the same colour, white as were the other Toes. Therefore I shall make but four Bones in the Metatarsus, answerable to those of the Metacarpus in the Hand, and three Bones in the great Toe.  
(g) And as the Hand of our pygmy in some Parts resembled the Humane; in others the Apekind: So the same may be said of the Foot too. For the Heel, the Tarsus and Metatarsus were like to the Humane. But all the Toes were liker to the Ape and Monkey-kind: For the Toes here, if we may call them Toes, and not rather Fingers, were almost as long as the Fingers in the Hand; much longer proportionably than in Man, and not lying so close together: But the Bones of the Fingers in the Hand, were larger and bigger than those of the Toes.  
(h) The great Toe in the pygmy, was shorter than the first of the other Toes; tho' in a Man 'tis altogether as long; and herein it resembles the Apekind. But whereas Aristotle (as I have remarked) mentions, that in Apes the middle Toe is the longest, as is the middle Finger in the Hand; In the Sceleton of the pygmy I did observe, that the first and middle Toe were both much of a length, each measuring an Inch and three quarters: The third and little Toe were about an Inch and an half long; the little Toe being rather somewhat shorter than the third Toe. If in the great Toe you reckon three Articuli, as Eustachius does, then from the Tarsus to it's Extreme, the great Toe measured two Inches and an half: but if with Coiter you make but two Articuli or Joints in the great Toe, and the other to be a Bone of the Metatarsus; these two were only an Inch and a quarter long: The four Bones of the Metatarsus were much of a length, being about an Inch and a quarter long.  
This great Toe (as has been already frequently remarked) being set off from the range of the others, more resembles a Thumb. This Difference I observe in its make, That the Bones that compose it, are much bigger and larger, than any of the other Toes; and in respect of the Thumb in the Hand, vastly bigger. In the Sceletou of a Monkey I did not observe the Bones of the great Toe, to exceed those of the other. But as the Thumb in the Foot is much bigger, than that in the Hand; so the Fingers in the Hand are much larger than those in the Foot.   

CAP. VI  
De Sesamoideis.  
IN Homine Ossa Sesamoidea pauca sunt, magnaque ex parte cartilaginosa, & si ea quae pollici applicantur exceperis, in constanti sede firmata. In simia verò multa, atque magna occurrunt, & ossea perpetuò sunt. Cuique primo quatuor digitorum internodio, & secundo pollicis gemina ferè semper adnectuntur. Duo ossicula magnitudine ciceris, supra utrumque tuberculum femoris in origine gemellorum reperiuntur.  
As to the Ossa Sesamoidea in our Subject, I have very little to say: For it being young, very likely they might be only Cartilaginous, and the Skin adhering so firmly here, they might be taken off with it. Since they are in Apes, I do not doubt, but that they were in our pygmy too, tho' I did not observe them.  
Having now made my Remarks upon the Comparison, that Riolan, or rather Eustachius and Coiter, have given us, between the Sceleton of a Man, an Ape, and a Monkey; and shown wherein the Sceleton of our pygmy either agreed or disagreed from any of them, I shall make some Reflections upon the whole; and more particularly upon some Parts, which deserve here a more distinct Consideration. But shall first of all take the Dimensions of the Sceleton, and of some other Parts I have not mentioned already.  
As from the top of the Cranium to the Extreme of the Heel in a straight Line, the Sceleton of the pygmy measured about two Foot; from the first Vertebra of the Neck to the last of the Os Coccygis, eleven Inches; from the head of the Shoulder-bone, to the end of the middle Finger, 'twas about fifteen Inches; the end of this Finger reaching in an erect Posture an Inch and half below the Patella: whereas in an Humane Sceleton, from the end of the middle Finger to the lower part of the Patella, it wanted five Inches and an half: Our pygmy therefore herein imitated the Apekind. From the head of the Thighbone, to the bottom of the Os Calcis in the pygmy, was about ten Inches. From the setting on of the first Rib, to the fastening on of the last, was four Inches. The distance between the last Rib, and the Spine of the Os Ilium, not full two Inches. From the Spine of the Os Ilium, to the bottom of the Os Pubis, in a straight Line, was four Inches and three quarters. The distance between the end of the Scapula, and Spine of the Os Ilium about three Inches.  
Both when it was alive, and after its death, I admired the straitness and shape of its Back. Now the Scapula coming down so low on the Ribs, and inclining towards the Vertebrae of the Back, and the Os Ilium rising so high, they do contribute very much towards it; and must also a●ford a great safeguard and strength to the Back and Spine.  
The Sceleton of our pygmy was just the same length of one of a Monkeys that I borrowed: But because I observed most of the Apophyses of the Bones to be Cartilaginous in the pygmy, I must conclude, that 'twas but young; and that probably it might grow taller; to what height I am uncertain. Yet I can by no means be induced to believe, that it would ever arrive to the Stature of a Man, as some sort of this Species of Animals has been observed to do; for than I could not expect to have seen here, the Bones themselves so solid, or the Cranium to be so entirely ossisied, or the Sutures to be so closed and indented, and the Backbone and Ribs so fully hardened, as all the Bones of the Artus or Limbs were likewise, except at their Apophyses, and in the Carpus and Tarsus. Now all these Parts that had these Cartilaginous Apophyses, had already acquired so great a length, in proportion to the rest of the Body, that 'tis not to be imagined, that they would have exceeded it, or at least not much; and considering that Animals come to their 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of growth sooner or later, according to their Longevity, as a Man, (till he is past the Age that any of these Creatures, it may be, arrive to) does not leave growing: this inclines me to think, since we found most parts of the Body so perfected here, that it might not in time much exceed the height it had already acquired. I could have wished that those that have wrote of any of this Species of Animals, had given us their Dimensions and Ages; but they are silent herein, or at least too general: only Le Compte observed an Ape in the Straits of Molucca four foot high; but this may not be our sort. As to those of Borneo, I was informed by a Sea-Captain who used those Parts, that the King there formerly had one as tall as a Man, that would frequently come down to the Town, and a great many Stories are told of him. The same Captain had two given him, both young, and about the height of our pygmy; but these were not hairy, but naked as a Man; and one of them that he carried to Batavia, was looked upon as so great a Rarity, that all the time he stayed there, his Ship was constantly visited by such as came to see it. But 'tis Master of Fact, not Reasoning, that will best determine this doubt, and a faithful Observation that must inform us, to what tallness this sort of Animal in Angola, and the Countries thereabout, does usually grow; for in different Countries they may be different in this respect, tho' the same Species, as is seen even in Mankind.  
'Tis not therefore that I am fond of the word pygmy, that I have called our Animal so, or that I would undertake to justify our present Subject to be exactly the pygmy of the Ancients: Of this Quadru-Manu; sort of Animals there are divers Species, and some may be taller and others shorter; but all of them being but Brutes, I was unwilling to call ours a Man, tho' with an Epithet. 'Twas necessary to give it a Name, because not tallying exactly with the Descriptions of those that are given us, I did not know but that it might be different: and it's present height corresponding so well with that of the Pigmies of the Ancients, (and we may allow something for growth too) induced me to this denomination: For as A. Gellius 
(88) A. G●ll. N●st. A●●●●. lib. 9 cap. 4. p. 205  tells us, the Pigmies were two Foot and a quarter high. Pygmaeos quoque (saith he) hand longè ab his nasci, quorum qui longissimi sunt, non longiores esse quam pedes duos & quadrantem. And so Pliny 
(89) Plin● N●● Hist. lib. 7. cap. 2. p.m. 13. , Suprà hos extremâ in parte Montium Trispithami, Pygmaeique narrantur, ternas Spimathas longitudine, hoc est ternos dodrantes non excedentes; that is twenty seven Inches. For as Ludovicus Vives 
(90) Lud. 〈◊〉 Comment in D. Aug 〈…〉 ni de Civitate De●, lib. 16. cap. 8. p.m. 82●  observes, a Foot contains sixteen Digiti or twelve Policies. The Dodrans or Spithama, which is the Palmus major, contains nine Policies; the Palmus minor is but three Policies, or four Digiti, that is, a quarter of a Foot: And so Herodotus 
(91) Herod●tus in Europe, No. 149. p.m. 448.  informs us, that the Palmus contains four Digiti, and the Cubit six Palmi. The pygmy therefore being Trispithamus or three Spithamae long, was twenty seven Inches long, or as A. Gellius tells us, two Foot and a quarter. So our Animal, before Dissection measured twenty six Inches; but in the Sceleton, only four and twenty Inches. Not but Strabo 
(92) Strab●. Geograph. lib. 15. p.m. 489.  out of Megasthenes, does mention too, the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, as well as the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉; but these latter (he tells us) were those, that Homer makes to fight the Cranes, However it be, if our Ape be not the pygmy of the Ancients, yet I can't but think, the Pigmies of the Ancients were only a sort of Apes, notwithstanding all the Romances that have been made about them. And if so, and our Ape be found not much to exceed the measures given, I shall think my Conjecture in giving this Name, not amiss. But of this hereafter. And to proceed:  
Since the Bones are the main Timber-work in this Fabric of Animal Bodies, by which the whole is supported, and upon their Structure, in a good measure, does depend their manner of local motion, we will here more particularly inquire, which may be thought the most natural way of walking in our pygmy, either as a Quadruped or a Biped, for it did both upon occasion; and we will see whether by Nature 'twas equally provided for the doing both.  
Now when I observed it to go upon all four, as a Quadruped (as has been already remarked) it did not place the Palms of the Hands flat to the Ground, but went upon its Knuckles, or rather upon the first Joints of the Fingers of the Forehands, the second and third Joints being bended or touching the Ground; which seemed to me so unusual a way of walking, as I have not observed the like before in any Animal. And I did expect it the less here: because the Fore-limbs being so very long, it might be thought, that it had the less need of thus raising the Body. And the whole weight of the Body thus lying upon these Joints of the Fingers, one would think, that they should be soon tired in supporting it, and that Nature did not design it for a Constancy, but only upon occasion, or a present shift: For if it was to be its usual way of walking, no doubt, for it's greater ease, it would place the Palms flat to the Ground, as all other Animals do the sole of the Foot, and hereby it would be rendered better able to bear this weight.  
Besides, when it walks thus upon its Fingers, the flexure at the Elbow will be inwards, towards the sides of the Body, which is different from all other Quadrupeds, and in its Progression will be of no use at all, nay, will be an hindrance to it; and it will require a great tention of the Muscles to keep these Fore-limbs straight; and if they are not kept so, they must halt, and can't move swiftly; which makes me diffident, that this can't be its Natural Posture in going; for Nature always contrives the easiest and best ways of Motion. Now in Quadrupeds the flection of the fore and hinder Limbs, is both the same way: But in a Man and an Ape (as I have before remarked from Aristotle) 'tis contrary; or as Pliny expresses it, Homini genua & Cubita contraria, item Vrsis & Simiarum generi, ob id minimè pernicibus. But how Pliny comes to bring in the Bear here, I do not understand: for if with the Parisians 
(93) Vide Their Anatomic Description of a Bear in their Memoirs, p. m. 44.  we should here understand by Genua, the Heel-bone, and by Cubita a Bone of the Carpus (which are often longer in Brutes than in Man) than this will be a Property not peculiar to Bears, but might be observed in other Quadrupeds too. I should rather own it as a Mistake in Pliny. Nor can I assent to the Parisians, That all Animals have these Parts turned after the same, manner, whatever Aristotle may report thereof. I must confess I am of Aristotle's mind, and any Body may experience it in himself, and observe the flexure of the Cubit to be different from that of the Knee; and where 'tis so, there the Motion upon all four, will be very awkward and unnatural, and as Pliny observes, it can't be swift.  
I shall here further observe, that in Quadrupeds the make of the Thorax, the setting on of the Scapula, and the Articulation of the Humerus, or Shoulder-bone, are much different from what they are in Bipeds.: for Quadrupeds are narrow Chested, and their Thorax not so round as in a Man, because in them the Scapulae are to be placed more forward upon the Ribs, and not so backwards as in Men. And the Articulation or the Shoulder with the Scapula in Quadrupeds lies nearer the Ribs; in Man 'tis extended farther from them. Now our pygmy so exàctly imitating Humane-kind in all these Circumstances, makes me think that Nature did not design it a Quadruped, but a Biped. For it had a full round Chest or Thorax, and it's Scapulae placed backwards, not so forwards on the Ribs, and the Articulation of the Shoulder with the Scapula, stood off from the Ribs as it does in Man. And from this very Consideration Galen 
(94) len de usu Partium, lib. 13. cap. 11. p. m. 627.  tells us, That a Man, if he would, could not walk upon all four, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 (saith he) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. i.e. Meritò itaque Homo ne, si volet, quidem ambularc quatuor artubus queat, quòd in ipso Scapularum Articuli longè à Thorace sint abducti. And Galen all along owns, that the Structure of the Scapula in the Ape, is the same as in a Man; and tells us that an Ape is exactly neither a Quadruped, nor a Biped, but amphibious between both. For in the same Chapter, speaking of the Ape, he saith, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. e. Quod verò ad Scapulas & Claves attinet, homini maxime est similis, quamquàm eâ parte homini similis esse non debebat, nam quod ad ambulationis celeritatem pertinet, simia inter genus utrumque ambigit, neque cnim Bipes penitus est, neque Quadrupes; sed quatenùs est Bipes, clauda est, non enim rectè planè stare potest; & quatenùs est Quadrupes, mutila simul est, ac tarda, quòd Humeri articulus à Thorace plurimùm sit abductus, quemadmodùm si idem articulus in alio quopiam animante a Thorace divulsus extra secessisset. Now altho' Galen tells us here, that an Ape can scarce stand upright; yet in another place he declares quite the contrary; for, saith he 
(95) Galen de usu Partium, lib. 11. cap. 2● , 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. i.e. Est autem simillima homini Simia, ut quae rotundam praecipuè habet factem, Dentes Caninos parvos, latum Pectus, Claviculas longiores, minimùm Pilosa, quae recta etiam stat bellè ut & incedere sine errore, & currere velociter possit.  
We have seen upon what accounts our pygmy may be thought not to be a Quadruped, or that it's natural Gression is not on all four, and how ill it is provided to go that way. We will now inquire, Whether there is not more reason to think that Nature designed it to be a Biped, and to walk erect. And in the doing this, we may observe the largeness of the Heel-bone in the Foot, which being so much extended, sufficiently secures the Body from falling backwards, as the length of the Toes does its being cast too forwards; and the Arms being so long, may easily give a poise either way, for the preserving the AEquilibrium of the Body. And it may be, this is the Reason why the Pongos hold their hands behind their Necks, when they walk erect. If we consider the Articulation of the Os Femoris in the Acetabulum, there is no difference to be observed from a Man, nor indeed in any other Circumstance that relates to this Matter. 'Tis true, in my first figure I represent him as weak and feeble and b●●ding; for when I first saw him, he was die; besides, being young, and ill it had not that strength in its Limbs, as in time and in health, it might have acquired; and I was willing to represent what I saw myself. But what very much sways with me, to think him a Biped, and to go erect, and that Nature did design it so, much more than any of the Ape and Monkey-kind besides, was my observing the Peritonaeum to be entire, and not perforated or protruded in the ●roin, as it is in Apes and Dogs, and other Quadrupeds: as likewise, because I found the Pericardium in our pygmy to be fastened to the D●●hragm, as 'tis in Man, and which is not so in Apes and Monkeys. Both which are so remarkable differences, and (as I have already 〈◊〉 marked) so particularly contrived for the advantage of an erect 〈…〉 re of the Body, that, I think, the Inference is easy, and we may 〈…〉 lie conclude, that Nature intended it a Biped, and hath not been wanting in any thing, in forming the Organs, and all Parts accordingly; and if not altogether so exactly as in a Man, yet much more than in any other Brute besides: For I own it, as my constant Opinion, (notwithstanding the ill surmise and suggestion made by a forward Gentleman) that tho' our pygmy has many Advantages above the rest of its Species, yet I still think it but a sort of Ape and a mere Brute; and as the Proverb has it, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 
(96) Lucian. adversus indoctum. Oper. p. m. 865.  An Ape is an Ape, tho' finely clad.  
This Proverb, perhaps, might have its rise from some such occasion as Lucian mentions in another place; and the Story being pleasant, and relating to what we have been just now discoursing upon, viz. it's manner of Motion, we will insert it here, and then proceed to the Myology. Lucian 
(97) Lucian. Piscator sive Reviviscentes. p. m. 214.  therefore saith, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 etc. i. e. Fertur AEgyptius Rex quidam Simias ut tripudiarent instituisse, Animaliaque (nam admodùm ad res humanas imitandas sunt. apta) celerrim● didicisse, ut Personata ac Purpurata saltarent: eraique admodùm visu res digna, donec Spectator quispiam urbanus nuces è sinu depromptas in medium abjiceret: id simiae videntes, tripudij oblitae, id quod erat, simiae pro saltatoribus evaserunt, Personas conterebant, vestitum discerpebant, invicemque pro fructibus depugnabant, ità ut Pyrriches ordo dissolveretur, à Theatroque ridebatur. And in another place 
(98) Lucian. pro Mercede conductis, p.m. 363.  he tells the like Story of Cleopatra's Apes. So that they can, not only go erect, but can dance in a figure too, if taught to do so. But this is not natural, but acquired by Art; and even Dogs have been taught to do the same. So AElian 
(99) AElian. Hist. Animal. lib. 5. p.m. 26.  tells us, that an Ape is easily taught to perform any Action; if 'tis taught to Dance, 'twill Dance, or Play upon the Pipe; and that once he saw one supply the Place of a Coachman; holding the Reins; pulling them in, or letting them loose, and using the Whip, as there was occasion. And that Story in Kercher 
(100) Kercher. China illustrata, Part. 4. cap. 7. p.m. 195. , of the Embassy that the King of Bengal sent to the Great Mogul in the Year 1660 is very remarkable, where a great Ape richly adorned, did drive a Chariot magnificently gilded, and set with Jewels; and did it with the greatest State and Pageantry in the World, and as skilfully as the best Coachman could do.  
It would be infinite to relate all the Stories that are told us of them; and I have been too tedious already. I shall therefore hasten now: But must inform the Reader, that I am obliged to my good Friend Mr. Cowper, not only for designing all my figures; but obtained of him likewise to draw up this ensuing account of the Muscles; whose great Skill and Knowledge herein, is sufficiently made evident by his Myotomia Reformata, or, New Administration of all the Muscles in Humane Bodies, published sometime since: To which I refer my Reader, for a fuller account of them, whenever 'tis said, that such and such Muscles in the pygmy resembled those in Humane Bodies. And for his greater Ease, there are References all along made, to the figures; where the first Number signifies the Figure, or Table; the second Number the Muscle exhibited or represented there.    

84 THE MYOTOMY OR DESCRIPTION OF THE MUSCLES.  
Of the Muscles of the Abdomen.  
THE Obliquus Descendens (Fig. 3.38.) agreed in its situation and progress, with that of a Humane Body, as the accurate Galen and Vesalius describe it, and did not partly spring from any of the Transverse Processes of the Vertebrae of the Loins; or their Ligaments and Membranes, as the later Writers would have it in Humane Bodies. Neither did any part of the Obliquus Ascendens (Fig. 3. 39) arise from the Lumbal Vertebrae, as Vesalius describes it in Men: but agreed with the Description of Galen, and did not differ from the Humane. Drelincourt observes the like in Apes: The same Author takes notice, that the pyramidals are wanting in those Animals; which were absent also in the pygmy. The Rectus (Fig. 3. 40.) agreed with the Humane, and had no Connection with a Muscular Portion, springing either from the Clavicula or first Rib, as Vesalius has figured Galen's Description of it in Apes and Dogs. The Parisians say, In Monkeys it ascends to the top, passing under the Pectoralis and Little Serratus, it was Fleshy only to the half of the Sternum, the rest being but a mere Tendon. Drelincourt observes the Tendinous Inscriptions of these Muscles in Apes, appeared only on their inside, and not on the out. The Transversalis in this, as in most Quadrupeds, did not differ from that in Man.  
The Cremaster Muscles were very small by reason of the leanness of the Subject. The Accelerator Spermatis (Fig. 7. G.) Erector Penis (Fig. ib. K.) and Transversalis Penis (ib. L.) agreed in their Situation and Figure with those of Men; the last of which only varied in its Termination, as appears in the Figure.  
The Detrusor Vrinae agreed with the Figure of the Bladder of Vrinae of this Animal. The Sphincter Vesicae differed not from that in Men; and most, if not all Quadrupeds; it being placed in the Neck of the Bladder, beyond the Caruncula or Caput Gallinaginis, immediately above the Prostates. The Sphincter Any differed not from the Humane; unless it might seem somewhat less. The Levatores Any were longer and more divided from each other, than in Humane Bodies: The like may be observed in most, if not all Quadrupeds; by reason of the Length and differing Figure of the Bones, whence these Muscles take their rise.  
I could find no Occipital nor Frontal Muscles in this Animal.  
The Orbicularis Palpebrarum (Fig. 3.2.) and Aperiens Palpebram Rectus agreed with the Humane, and those of most Quadrupeds. The Obliquus Superior, Inferior, Elevator, Depressor, Adductor, and Abductor Oculi, agreed with those of the Humane Eye and an Ape's, as Julius Casserius Placentinus Figures them Tab. 4. Organi Visûs, Fig. XII. & XIII. Nor was there any Musculus Septimus Brutorum in this Animal. The Aloe Nasi of the pygmy being small, those Muscles only appeared, which from their Office are called Constrictores Alarm Nasi, ac Depressores Labij superioris.  
The Quadratus Genae, or Platusma Myoides, by reason of the Leanness of the Subject, (as I suspect) did not appear Fleshy. The Buccinator (Fig. 3.7.) was longer than that in Man. Nor was it any where intertext with various orders of Fibres, as Anatomists commonly represent it in Man; or seemed to arise from any other Parts, but the Processus Corone; from whence its Fibres had a straight progress to the Angle of the Lips; as in Men: This and the former Muscles, are counted Common Muscles to the Cheeks and Lips.  
The Muscles Common to both Lips, are the Zygomaticus, (Fig. 3. 3.) Elevator, Depressor, and Constritor Labiorum, which were not so conspicuous, as in Men. The Proper Muscles of the upper and under Lip, were very distinct in this Animal, (viz.) the Elevator and Depressor Labij Superioris, (Fig. 3. 4.) the last of which is mentioned above, and called Constrictor Aloe Nasi; the Depressor and Elevator Labij Superioris, (Fig. 3.5.)  
Tho' the Auricula or Outward Ear of this Animal was as large, if not larger than that of a Man, yet I could not observe any Muscle, which served for its Motion. I could not examine the Muscles of the Tympanum and Stapes, by reason the Bones were kept entire for a Sceleton.  
The Sternohyoideus, Coracohyoideus, Mylohyoideus and Geniohyoideus, did not differ from those in Men; which Drelincourt has also observed of the former in the Female Ape. The Stylohyoideus did not arise from the Styliform Process; that Process being wanting in this Animal, or at least did not appear, by reason it was young; this Muscle therefore seemed to arise from the Os Petrosum.  
The Genioglossus, by reason of the length of the Lower Jaw, was longer than that in Man. The Ceratoglossus and Styloglossus differed not; except that the latter arises from the Os Petrosum, like the Stylohyoideus. The other Muscles appeared in this Animal belonging to its Tongue. The Sternothyroideus, Hyothyroideus, Cricothyroideus, Cricoarytaenoideus, Posticus and Lateralis; the Thyroarytaenoideus, and Arytaenoideus varied not from those in Men. The Myscles of the Fauces also, differed not from those in Man, (viz.) The Stylopharyngaeus, Pterygopharyngaeus, Oesophagaeus and Vaginalis Gulae. The following Muscles of the Gargareon were exactly like the Humane, (viz.) the Sphenostaphylinus and Pterygostaphylinus.  
Now all the Muscles of the Lower Jaw may be seen without incommoding any hereafter mentioned. The Temporalis (Fig. 3. 1.) and Masseter (Fig. 3. 6.) seemed somewhat larger than the Humane, and as they are commonly in Brutes, by reason their lower Jawbones are larger than those of Men; yet these Muscles were not so strong, as those of Monkeys, as the Parisians represent them. The Superior Salival Dust passed over the Masseter, and entered the Musculus Buccinator of the pygmy, as in Man. The Digastricus arose not from the Mammiform Process, as in Men; but sprang from the Occipital-bone; it's progress in this Animal agreed exactly with that in a Humane Body. Drelincourt describes it in Apes thus, Venus line a habet intermedium pollice longum, & gracilem, enascitur, autem ●●n ab ● pophyse Styloide, sed ab osse Basilari.  
The Muscles of the Thorax which appear on the forepart come next. The Inter●●s●ales externi and interni, (Fig. 4.32.) Triangularis, Scalenus Primus, S●●undus and Tertius; Subelavius (Fig. 3. 34.) Serratus minor anticus (Fig. 3. 35.) Serratus major anticus, (Fig. 3. 37.) All these were like the Humane. The Parisians tell us, That the Great Serratus did in in their Monkeys arise from the fourth, fifth, and sixth Vertebra of the Neck; but it was not so in the pygmy: The like is taken notice of by Drelincourt in Apes. The Diaphragma was larger in this Animal, than in Man, agreeable to the Capacity of its Thorax: The rest of the Muscles of the Thorax appear on its Backpart, which we shall mention hereafter.  
Before I pass to the Muscles on the Backpart of our pygmy, I shall take notice of a Pair of Muscles, that do not appear in Humane Bodies; which from their Use may be called Elevatores Clavicularum, (Fig. 3. 12.) Either of them arises Fleshy from the Transverse Processes of the second and third Vertebra of the Neck; and descends obliquely outwards to it's broad Insertion at the upper part of the Clavicula; when it Acts, it draws up the Clavicle, assisting the Elevator Scapulae, and upper part of the Cucularis, in raising the whole Shoulder. The situation of this Muscle, is not unlike the upper part of that represented by Vesalius in his sixth Table of the Muscles O. T. P. Q. which he says is found in Dogs and Apes, and described by Galen in Humane Bodies, in whom it is not existent. Drelincourt calls it Levator Omoplatae, (adding) ab Apophysibus transversis cervicalibus in Acromion & extremum claviculae extenditur.  
The Muscles employed in the Motion of the Scapula, are the Cucularis. (Fig. 4. 1.1.1.) Rhomboides (Fig. 4.6.) Levator Scapulae (ib. 5.) These also agreed with the Humane: The like being taken notice of by Drelincourt of the Cucularis, in the Female Ape. The rest of the Muscles of the Thorax, are the Serratus superior posticus, (Fig. 4. 7.) the Serratus inferior posticus (Fig. 4. 32. 32.) These differed not from those in Men. The Sacrolumbalis (Fig, 4. 29.) was not so thick as in Men, but was every way slenderer.  
The Muscles employed in the Motion of the Head of the pygmy, differed very little from those in Man; as the Splenius, (Fig. 4. 2.) Complexus, (Fig. 4.4.) Rectus major, Rectus minor, Obliquus Superior, and Obliquus Inferior, neither was this Inferior Oblique Muscle larger than in Man; as Vesalius, Lib. II. Cap. XXVIII. assures us, it is in Apes and Dogs. The Mastoideus (Fig. 3.8. 8.) was chiefly inserted to the Occipital-bone, as the Parisians observe it in Monkeys. The Rectus internus major, not commonly described by Authors in Humane Bodies, tho' it is very plain and constant in all those, I have hitherto looked for it, was also in the pygmy. The Rectus internus minor, or Musculus Annuens, sometimes observed by me in Humane Bodies, was also in this Animal; and so was the Rectus Lateralis described by Falloppius in Men. Nor was any of those Muscles I have discovered in Humane Bodies, wanting in this Animal, but the Interspinales Colli.  
The Longi Colli of this Animal, appeared to be longer and larger than those of Humane Bodies. The Spinalis Colli and Transversalis Colli were like those in Humane Bodies. The Interspinales Colli, which I have elsewhere described in Men, did not appear in this Animal. The Longissimus Dorsi (Fig. 4. 28.) nor unlike the Sacrolumbalis above noted, was not so thick and fleshy at its Origin from the Os Ilium, Sacrum, and Vertebrae of the Loins; nor was its external Surface in the pygmy so tendinous, as in Humane Bodies; but was somewhat broader. The Quadratus Lumborum was longer than in Men, agreeable to the space between the Spine of the Os Ilium, and lower Rib of this Animal. See the Figure of the Sceleton. The Sacer, and Semispinatus, differed not from the Humane, as I have represented them in my Myotomia Reformata, pag. 135.  
The Muscles of the Superior Parts and Trunk of the Body being dispatched, we come next to those of the Limbs; and first of the Arm or Os Humeri. The Pectoralis (Fig. 3. 33.) was much broader at its Original, from the Sternum, than in Man: it's Fibres were decussated near its Insertion. Galen and Jacobus Silvius take notice of another Muscle under the Pectoralis in Apes, which is implanted into the Arm near the Pectoral Muscle. The Deltoides (Fig. 3. 15. and 4. 12.) was also broader at its Original. Jac. Silvius tells us, this Muscle in Apes is like that of a Man. The Supraspinatus (Fig. 4. 8.) agreed with the Humane in its situation; but was somewhat broader at its Origin from the upper part of the Basis Scapulae. The Infraspinatus, as the former Muscle was broader at its Original from the Scapula, this on the contrary was there narrower than the Humane. Silvius and Drelincourt mention these Muscles in Apes; but whether they resemble those of Men, or this Animal, does not appear by their Accounts. Teres minor, (Fig. 4. 10.) this is sometimes wanting in Men: it was somewhat shorter and thicker in this Animal. The Teres major, (Fig. 4. 11.) was very large in the pygmy. The Latissimus Dorsi agreed with the Humane in its Original and Progress towards the Arm; but when it arrived at the Axilla, it parted with a fleshy Portion, which descended on the inside of the Arm, with the Musculus Biceps, and becoming a slender Tendon is inserted to the internal protuberance of the Os Humeri: (vide Fig. 8. C.) which represents the production of this Muscle. This Appendix or Accessary Muscle of the Latissimus Dorsi, is not peculiar to this Animal; the like being found in Apes according to Jacobus Silvius, who, I am inclined to think is mistaken, in representing its Insertion at the Olecranum of that Animal: This part of the Latissimus Dorsi seems a proper Instrument in turning the Os Humeri to a prone Position, when these Animals go on all four, for the more advantageous stepping with the Fore-feets, by raising the Os Humeri, and turning it backwards. Galen in Lib. de Musculis, Cap. XIX. describes this Appendix of the Latissimus Dorsi, under the Title of a small Muscle found in the Articulation of the Shoulder. The Coracobrachialis was like that in Man, but had no division in it for any Nerve ro pass through. The Subscapularis was also like that in Man.  
The Muscles employed in Bending and Extending the Cubit, differed very little from the Humane, viz. Biceps, (Fig. 3.16.16.) Brachiaeus internus, (ib. 18.) Gemellus, (Fig. 4. 14.) Brachiaeus externus, Anconaeus, (Fig. 4. 15. 15.) The like is observed of these Muscles by Silvius in Apes, who only adds that the Extenders are remarkably large in that Animal. The Biceps in the pygmy, had the same double tendinous Termination, as in Man.  
The Caro Musculosa Quadrata appeared in the Palm of the pygmy: nor was there any fleshy Belly, and long Tendon to the Palmaris; yet there was a Tendon or Ligament extended in the Palm; the like has been often taken notice of in Men, as Realdus Columbus also observes. The Parisians tell us, the Palmaris in Monkeys is extraordinary large.  
The Muscles of the four Fingers were, the Perforatus, (Fig. 3. 24.) Perforans, (Fig. 3. 25.) Lumbricales; (ib. 31.) these agreed exactly with the Humane; but the Extensor Digitorum Communis (Fig 4. 21.) was larger and distinct from the Extensor minimi Digiti, as in Men and Apes, which Drelincourt observes. The Extensor Indicis, Abductor Indicis, (Fig. 3.30.) Extensor minimi digiti, (Fig. 4.20.) Abductor minimi digitis (Fig. 4. 25.) and Interossij Manûs, differed not from those in Men. All the Muscles of the Thumb resembled those in Men, (viz.) the Flexor tertij internodij pollicis, Abductor Pollicis, (Fig. 3. 28.) Fiexor primi & secundi ossis pollicis, (ib. 29.) Adductor Pollicis, (Fig. 4. 27.) Extensor Primi internodij Pollicis, (ib. 23.) Extensor secundi ossis Pollicis, and Extensor tertij ossis pollicis. The Muscles of the Wrist also agreed with those in Men; viz. the Flexor Carpi Radialis, (Fig. 3. 23.) andVlnaris, (ib. 26.) the Extensor Carpi Radialis, (ib. 19) andVlnaris; (ib. 20.) The two last Drelincourt says, are also like the Humane in the Male-Ape.  
The Muscles employed in the Pronation and Supination of the Radius in the pygmy, were larger in proportion than those in Men. The Pronator Radij teres (Fig. 3.20.) had a double Origin; the one from the internal Protuberance of the Os Humeri, the other from the upper part of the Vlna: the Pronator Radij Quadratus. The Supinator Radij Longus is taken notice of by Drelincourt in Apes to be like that of Men. The Supinator Radij bravis, (Fig. 4. 24.) agreed exactly with the Humane.  
The Muscles of no part disagreed so much from those in Men, as those of the Thigh of this Animal: Here was no Glutaeus minor; nor did the Glutaeus maximus (Fig. 4. 33. 33.) resemble the Humane: It was merely Tendinous at its Origin, from the whole Spine of the Os Ilium; it was much longer, and not so thick as in Man; nor were its fleshy Fibres so divided: This Silvius describes for the Membranosus in Apes. The Parisians give a very imperfect account of the Musculi Glutaei in Monkeys, where they tell us, The Muscles of the Buttock had a Figure differing from those in Men, being shorter, by reason the Ossa Ilium in Apes are much straighter than in Man. The Glutaeus medius was also longer than that in Man. The Psoas magnus was also longer; which Silvius (from its Figure I suppose) calls Lumbaris Biceps in Apes. The Psoas parvus was also longer and larger, than in Man. Besides this, the Parisians tell us of two other little Muscles in Monkeys, which have the same Origin as the Psoas; and were inserted into the upper and inward part of the Os Pubis. The Iliacus Internus was long, conformable to the Figure of the Os Ilium of this Animal; (Vide Fig. 5. 28. 28) The Pectineus was not very distinct. The Triceps (Fig. 4. 37.) had no Tendinous Termination at the lower Appendix of the Thighbone internally. Jacobus Silvius says in Apes, Tricipitis pars longissima à Tubere in Condylum: altera portio insignis, à Tubere etiam nata, postico cruri propè toti assixa, ad usque Cavitatem inter duos condylos mediam: tertia minima & brevissima ossis pubis in medium & posticum Os Cruris. The Pyriformis (Fig. 4. 35.) was like the Humane; nor did it appear less in proportion, as the Parisians represent it, in Monkeys, who say, This Muscle, instead of taking its rise from the lower and external part of the Os Sacrum, it proceeded from the Ischium near the Cavitas Cotyloides. The Marsupialis had its Marsupium much broader than in Men. The Quadratus Femoris was less than in Man. The Obturator extrorsum was much larger.  
The Common Muscles of the Thigh and Leg, agreed in their Situation and Number, with those of Men. The Membranosus (Fig. 3.41.) had not so strong a Tendon to cover the Muscles of the Thighs and Tibia, as in Man. The Sartorius (Fig. 3. 42.) agreed with the Humane. The Gracilis (Fig 3 48.) was thicker and larger near its Origin. The Seminervosus (Fig. 4. 40.) and Semimembranosus, differed not from the Humane. The Biceps (Fig. 4. 41.) had its second beginning, somewhat lower, than in Men: The Parisians tell us, The Biceps in Monkeys had not a double Origin as in Man, but proceeded entire, from the Knob of the Ischium, and was inserted to the upper part of the Perona. This single Head was in requital very thick and strong. The Rectus had a double order of Fibres, as in Man. The Popliteus, I must confess escaped my notice. Silvius tells us, in Apes, it agrees with Men. The rest of the Muscles of this part, which we esteem Proper to the Tibia, and arise from the Os Femoris, were much less than the Humane, as the Vastus Internus, (Fig. 3. 44.) Crureus, and Vastus externus.  
The Muscles of the Tarsus or Foot, agreed in Number and Situation with the Humane; but varied in their Figure. The Gasterocnemius externus (Fig. 4. 43.) had not so large a Belly, nor were its Fibres so variously disposed; but it continued fleshy much lower, than in Man. Silvius tells us in Apes, Capita Gemellorum (meaning this Muscle) Ossae Sesamoidca habent, firmantia in Condylis Crus cum Tibia. The Plantaris differed not from that in Man. The Gasterocnemius internus, or soleus, (Fig. 4. 44.) continued fleshy to the Os Calcis, as Silvius observed it in Apes. The Tibialis Anticus (Fig. 3. 49.) was much larger, and continued fleshy much lower, than in Man. Silvius observed an Os Sesamoides in the Tendon of this Muscle in Apes. The Peroneus primus (Fig. 3. 51.) differed very little from that in Man; its Tendon having the same progress in the Bottom of the Foot, to the Bone of the Metatarsus of the Great Toe; which is nevertheless denied by Galen to be existent in Man; for which Vesalius, lib. 2. cap. 59 severely Censures him. I have more than once, seen a Boney body, placed in this Tendon at its Flexure on the Os Cuboides in Humane Bodies: The like is taken notice of by Silvius in an Ape. The Peroncus secundus differed not from that in Man. The Tibialis Posticus (Fig. 4. 45.) was not so large as in Man.  
The Muscles of the Great Toe differed from the Humane. The F●●ensor Pollicis longus (Fig. 3. 52.) had a more Oblique progress, and was fleshy lower. The Extensor Pollicis brevis (Fig. 3. 53.) was mu●●●arger, and its progress on the Foot almost transverse. The Flexor Po●●i●cis longus was pretty large. The Flexor Pollicis brevis (Fig. 4. 47.) was very large, and inseparably joined with the Abductor, which was very little. The Parisians tell us, The Great Toes of the Monkeys had Muscles like those, of a Ma●s Thumb. The Extensor Digitorum Pedis longus (Fig. 3.53.) had no Tendon implanted on the Os Metatarsi of the Little Toe. The Perforatus (Fig. 4. 46.) Perforans, (ib. 48.) Lumbricales, and Abductor Minimi Digiti, differed very little from those in Men. The Musculus Extensor Digitorum brevis, and Transversalis Pedis did not appear in this Animal.  
I shall not at present give the Reader the trouble of the Reflections, that I intended, upon the Observations made in the Anatomy of this remarkable Creature; since I am conscious (having been so tedious already) that 'twill but farther tyre him, and myself too. I shall therefore now conclude this Discourse, with a brief Recapitulation of the Instances I have given, wherein our pygmy, more resembled the Humane kind, than Apes and Monkeys do: As likewise sum up those, wherein it differed from a Man, and imitated the Apekind. The Catalogues of both are so large, that they sufficiently evince, That our pygmy is no Man, nor yet the Common Ape; but a sort of Animal between both; and tho' a Biped, yet of the Quadrumanus-kind; tho' some Men too, have been observed to use their Feet like Hands, as I have seen several.   

The Orang-Outang or pygmy more resembled a Man, than Apes and Monkeys do.  

1. IN having the Hair of the Shoulder tending downwards; and that of the Arm, upwards.  
2. In the Face 'twas liker a Man; having the Forehead larger, and the Rostrum or Chin shorter.  
3. In the outward Ear likewise except as to it's Cartilege, which was thinner as in Apes.  
4. In the Fingers; which were much thicker than in Apes.  
5. In being in all respects designed by Nature, to walk erect; whereas Apes and Monkeys want a great many Advantages to do so.  
6. The Nates or Buttocks larger than in the Apekind.  
7. It had Calves in its Legs.  
8. The Shoulders and Breast were more spread.  
9 The Heel was longer.  
10. The Membrana Adiposa placed here, next to the Skin.  
11. The Peritonaeum in the Groin entire; and not perforated, or protruded, as in Apes and Monkeys.  
12. The Intestines or Guts much longer.  
13. The Intestines being very different in their bigness, or largeness of their Canalis.  
14. In having a Caecum or Appendicula Vermiformis, which Apes and Monkeys have not: and in not having the beginning of the Colon so projected or extended, as Apes and Monkeys have.  
15. The Insertion of the Ductus Bilarius and the Ductus Pancreaticus in a Man, the pygmy, and an Ape was at the same Orifice. In a Monkey there was two Inches distance.  
16. The Colon was here longer.  
17. The Liver not divided into Lobes, as in Apes and Monkeys; but entire, as in Man.  
18. The Biliary Vessels, the same as in Man.  
19 The Spleen the same.  
20. The Pancreas the same.  
21. The Number of the Lobes of the Lungs, the same as a Man's.  
22. The Pericardium fastened to the Diaphragm, as in Man; but is not so in Apes and Monkeys.  
23. The Cone of the Heart, not so pointed, as in Apes.  
24. It had not those Pouches in the Chaps, as Apes and Monkeys have.  
25. The Brain was abundantly larger than in Apes; and all its Parts exactly form like the Humane Brain.  
26. The Cranium more globous; and twice as big as an Ape's or Monkey's.  
27. All the Sutures here, like the Humane: And in the Lambdoidal uture were the Ossa triquetra Wormiana. In Apes and Monkeys 'tis otherwise,  
28. It had an Os Cribriforme, and the Crista Galli; which Monkeys have not.  
29. The Sella Equina here, the same as in Man; in the Apekind 'tis more rising and eminent.  
30. The Processus Pterygoides, as in Man: In Apes and Monkeys they are wanting.  
31. The Ossa Bregmatis and Temporum hear the same as in Man. In Monkeys they are different.  
32. The Os Zygomaticum in the pygmy was small; in the Monkey and Apes 'tis bigger.  
33. The Shape of the Teeth more resembled the Humane, especially the Dentes Canini and Molares.  
34. The Transverse Apophyses of the Vertebrae of the Neck, and the Sixth and Seventh Vertebra, were liker the Humane, than these Parts in Apes and Monkeys are.  
35. The Vertebrae of the Neck had not those Foramina for transmitting the Nerves; which Apes have and Man has not.  
36. The Vertebrae of the Back, and their Apophyses Rectae like the Humane: and in the lower Vertebrae but two Apophyses infernae; not four, as in Apes.  
37. There were but five Vertebrae of the Loins here, as in Man: in Apes and Monkeys there are six.  
38. The Spines of the Lumbal Vertebrae straight, as in Man.  
39 The Os Sacrum was composed of five Vertebrae, as in Man: in Apes and Monkeys there are but three Vertebrae.  
40. The Os Coccygis had but four Bones, and these not perforated, as 'tis in Man: In Monkeys there are more Bones, and they are perforated.  
41. In the pygmy there were but seven Costae verae; and the Extremes of the Nothae were Cartilaginous; and the Ribs were articulated to the body of the Vertebrae. In Apes and Monkeys there are eight Costae verae; and the Extremes of the Nothae are ossious; and the Articulation is in the Interstices of the Vertebrae.  
42. The Os Sterni in the pygmy was broad, as in a Man: in the Monkey 'tis narrow.  
43. The Bones of the four Fingers much larger than in the Apekind.  
44. The Thighbone in its Articulation, and all other respects, like the Humane.  
45. The Patella round, not long; single, not double; as 'tis said to be in Apes.  
46. In the Heel, the Tarsus, and Metatarsus, the pygmy was like a Man.  
47. The middle Toe in the pygmy was not the longest, as 'tis in the Apekind.  
48. These Muscles, viz. The Obliquus Inferior Capitis, the Pyriformis and Biceps Femoris, were like the Humane; whereas the same in Apes and Monkeys are different. And Note, That all the other Muscles that are not otherwise specified in the following Catalogue, were like the Humane also; but whether all the same Muscles in Apes and Monkeys resemble the Humane, Could not be determined, for want of a Subject to compare them with, or Observations made by others.    

The Orang-Outang or pygmy differed from a Man, and resembled more the Ape and Monkey-kind.  

1. IN the littleness of its Stature.  
2. In the flatness of the Nose and the slit in the Alae Narium.  
3. In having a rising Ridge of the Cranium under the Eyebrows.  
4. In being more hairy behind, than before.  
5. In having the Thumb so little, tho' larger than in the Apekind.  
6. In having the Palm of the Hand longer and narrower.  
7. In the length of the Toes.  
8. In having the Great Toe set at a distance from the other, like a Thumb; and being Quadrumanus, like the Apekind.  
9 In having the Shoulder and Thigh shorter.  
10. In having the Arms longer.  
11. In having no pendulous Scrotum.  
12. In the largeness of the Omentum.  
13. The Gallbladder long and slender.  
14. The Kidneys rounder than in Men; and the Tubuli Vrinarij different.  
15. The Bladder of Urine longer.  
16. In having no Fraenum to the Praeputium.  
17. In having the Bony Orbit of the Eye so much protruded inwards, towards the Brain.  
18. It had not those two Cavities under the Sella Turcica, as in Man.  
19 The Processus Mastoides and Styloides very small, almost wanting.  
20. The Bones of the Nose flat.  
21. In the Number of the Teeth, it resembled the Apekind.  
22. The Vertebrae of the Neck, short as in the Apekind and flat before, not round; and their Spines, not bifide, as in Man.  
23. In the first Vertebra of the Neck; there was no Spine.  
24. In an Ape the Tenth Vertebra of the Back; in a Man the Twelfth; in the pygmy the Thirteenth Vertebra, infra s●prave suscipitur.  
25. The Os Sacrum altogether like the Apekind, only in the number of the Vertebrae.  
26. In having Thirteen Ribs on a side: a Man has but Twelve.  
27. The Bone of the Thumb but small.  
28. The Os Ilium perfectly like the Apekind; being longer, narrower, and not so Concave as in Man.  
29. The Bones of the Toes in their length, and the Great Toe in its Structure imitated the Apekind.  
30. These Muscles were wanting in the pygmy, which are always found in Men; viz. Occipitales, Frontales, Dilatatores Alarum Nast, seu Elevatores Labij Superioris, Interspinales Colli, Glutaei minimi, Extensor Digitorum Pedis brevis, and Transversalis Pedis.  
31. These Muscles did not appear in the pygmy, and are sometimes wanting too in Humane Bodies; viz. pyramidals; Caro musculosa Quadrata; the long Tendon and fleshy Belly of the Palmaris; Attollens Auriculam; and Retrahens Auriculam.  
32. The Elevatores Clavicularum are in the pygmy and the Apekind, and not in Man.  
33. These Muscles resembled those in Apes and Monkeys, and differed from the Humane, viz. Longus Colli, Pectoralis, Latissimus Dorsi Glutaeus maximus & medius, Psoas magnus & parvus, Iliacus internus, and the Gasterocnemius internus.  
34. These Muscles differed likewise from the Humane, viz. the Deltoides; the Pronator Radij teres; the Extensor Pollicis brevis.    

The Explanation of the Figures.  

Figure the First  
REpresents the Foreparts of the Orang-Outang or pygmy, in an Erect Posture: Where you may observe the largeness of the Head; and broadness of the Forehead; the jutting out of the Eyebrows; the Eyes somewhat sunk; the Nose flat; the Face without hair and wrinkled; the Teeth like the Humane; the Chin short; the Ears standing off from the Head; the Head hairy; the Shoulders spread and large; the Arms and Palms of the Hands long; the Nails like those in a Man; the Hair of the Shoulder inclining downwards, and that on the Arms, upwards; the Fingers large; the Thumb little; the Breast full chested and spread; the Mammae or Teats placed as in Man; the Belly flat; the Navel as in Man; the Penis halfway covered with the Prepuce, which had no Fraenum; no pendulous Scrotum here; the Thighs a little divaricated; the Legs long and with Calves; the Foot like a Hand, having long Toes, and the Great Toe placed at a distance from the others, like a Thumb; the Feet, Hands, Face, Ears, and Penis without Hair; and all the Foreparts of the Body rather less hairy than here represented; and the Head is too much shrunk down between the Shoulders.   

The Second Figure  
REpresents the Hinder Parts of the pygmy in an Erect Posture likewise; where may be observed the Globous Figure of the Head; the straitness of the Back; and that 'tis more hairy behind, than before; the Fingers of the right Hand are represented bending, to show the Action, when, it goes on all four; for than it places only the Knuckles, not the Palms of the Hands to the Ground. The Sole of the left Foot, by reason of the length of the Toes, and the setting on of the Great Toe, looks like the Palm of the Hand: but the right, having so long a Heel, and its Toes being hid, appears rather like a Foot, and upon occasion performs the Office of both, either of a Foot or Hand. A little above the Anus, there is a black Spot, which represents a small Protuberance of the Os Coccygis.   

The Third Figure  

REpresents the Muscles which appear on the Forepart of the Body.  
A. Part of the Coronary Suture.  
B. The Division of the Cranium made by the Saw.  
c. The Meatus Auditorius.  
d. Part of the Os Jugale, or Zygomaticum.  
e. The Parotid Gland. * The Salival Dust.  
f. The Inferior Maxillary Gland.  
g. g. The Claviculae.  
h. Part of the Spina Scapulae, as joined to the Clavicle.  
i. The Nerves, and Blood Vessels which pass to the Arm.  
k. The Trunk of the Nerve in the left Arm, that goes to the Fingers.  
l. A large Trunk of the Artery, and a Nerve in the Cubit, as in Humane Bodies.  
m. m. The Internal Protuberances of the Os Humeri.  
n. The Radius of the left Arm made bare.  
o. The Vmbilicus, or Navel.  
p. The Linea Alba.  
q. q. The Tendons of the Oblique Muscles, called Linea Semilunaris.  
r. r. The Tunica Vaginalis, containing the Vasa Praeparantia, etc.  
s. s. The Testes or Stones.  
t. The Blood Vessels of the Thigh, as they pass under the Inguinal Glands.  
T. The Os pubis.  
V. The Ligamentum suspensorium Penis.  
u. The Great Trochanter.  
w. The Penis.  
x. x. The two Patellae.  
y. y. The internal and lower Appendix of the Os Femoris.  
z. z. The Tibia.   

No 1. The Musculus Temporalis.  
2. The Orbicularis Palpebrarum.  
3. Zygomaticus, seu distortor oris.  
4. Elevator Labij superioris proprius.  
5. Elevator Labij inferioris proprius.  
6. Masseter.  
7. Buccinator.  
8. 8. Mastoideus.  
9 Sternohyoideus.  
X. Part of the Corocohyoideus.  
11. Part of the Digastricus, and its Insertion into the Chin.  
12. Elevator Claviculae, which Muscle is not in Man, but in the pygmy and Apes.  
13. Part of the Complexus Capitis.  
14. Part of the Cucularis.  
15. 15. Deltoides.  
15. 16. The Biceps.  
17. The thin Tendinous Expansion of the Biceps which involves the Muscles of the Cubit, as in Man.  
18. Part of the Brachaeus internus.  
19 The Tendinous Elongation of the Latissimus Dorsi, which is found in the pygmy, and in Apes and Monkeys; and not in Man; near its Insertion into the Internal Protuberance of the Os Humeri.  
20. 20. The Pronator Radij teres. That of the left side, being dissected from its Insertion, and left at its two Originals.  
21. 21. The Supinator Radij Longus.  
22. Part of the Extensor Radialis.  
23.23. The Flexor Radialis, that of the left Arm hanging at its insertion.  
24. 24. The Perforatus; that of the left side hanging by its Tendons on the Palm of the Hand.  
25. The Perforans; a little raised in the left Arm.  
26. The Tendon of the Flexor Vlnaris as it runs to the Carpus.  
27. A Tendinous Expansion, like the Palmaris in Man; but here was no Muscle, which is often seen in Humane Bodies.  
28. 28. The Abductor Pollicis.  
29. The Flexor Secundi internodij Pollicis.  
30. Abductor Indicis,  
31. 31. The Lumbricales.  
32. The Abductor minimi digiti.  
33. The Pectoralis; that of the left side being raised, to show the decussation of its Fibres, as in Man.  
34. Part of the Musculus subclavius.  
35. Serratus minor anticus.  
36. 36. The Intercostales externi.  
37.37. The Serratus major anticus; where 'tis indented with the Musculus obliquus descendens.  
38. 38. The Obliquus descendens.  
39 The Obliquus ascendens, as it appeared after the descendens was removed.  
40.40. The Musculi Recti, with their Paragraphs or Inscriptions as in Man  
41. 41. The Musculus communis Membranosi.  
42. 42. The Sartorius.  
43. 43. The Rectus Femoris.  
44. 44. The Vastus internus.  
45. Part of the Vastus externus.  
46. 46. Parts of the Triceps.  
47 47. The Pectinaeus.  
48. The Gracilis.  
49. 49. The Tibialis Anticus.  
50. Part of the Gasterocnemius.  
51. Parts of the Peronei.  
52. The Extensor Pollicis longus.  
53. The Extensor Pollicis brevis, which differed in this Animal, from that in Man.  
54. The Tendons of the Extensor Communis digitorum, as they pass between the Interossij.  
55. The Abductor minimi digiti.  
56. The Pronator Radij Quadratus.  
57 Part of the Supinator Radij brevis; at its Insertion to the Radius.    

Figure the Fourth  

Shows the Muscles of the Backpart of the Body.  
a. THE Sagittal Suture.  
b. The Lambdoidal Suture.  
c. c. c. The Spines of the Superior Vertebrae of the Thorax, and of one of the Inferior of the Neck.  
d. The Extremity of the Clavicle, where it is connected to the Spine of the Scapula.  
e. The Spine of the Scapula.  
f. The lower Angle of the Scapula.  
g. The upper part of the Os Humeri, made bare, by raising the Deltoid Muscle.  
h. h. The Acromion or Elbow.  
i. The External Protuberance of the Os Humeri, where the upper part of the Radius, is Articulated.  
k. The Vlna.  
l. l. The Spines of the Back and Loins.  
m. m. The Spines of the Ossa Ilium.  
n. The Os Coccygis.  
o. The Great Trochanter.  
p. The Trunk of the Great Crural Nerve.  
q. q. The Ossa Ischij.  
r. r. r. The Crural Nerves in the Hams.  
s. s. The Os Calcis.  
t. t. The Malleolus Internus.  
u. The Malleolus externus.  
w. w. The Great Toe.  
x. x. The four little Toes.  
y. y. The Pelvis left open, by taking out the Anus with the Rectum.  
No 1.1.1.1. The Musculus Cucularis, raised on the right side, and left fastened to the Occiput, and to its Insertion at the Spine of the Scapula and Clavicle.  
2. Part of the Splenius.  
3. Part of the Mastoideus.  
4. Part of the Complexus.  
5. Part of the Levator Scapulae.  
6. Rhomboides.  
7. Part of the Serratus superior posticus.  
8. Supraspinatus.  
9 Infraspinatus.  
X. The Teres minor, which is larger here than in Man.  
11. The Teres major.  
12. The Deltoides raised.  
13. 13. 13. 13. The Latissimus Dorsi, on the right side in situ in the left, freed from its Original and hanging down.  
14. The Biceps Externus seu Gemellus.  
15. The Anchonaeus.  
16. Part of the Brachaeus internus.  
17. Part of the Biceps internus.  
18. The Supinator Radij longus.  
19 The Extensor Carpi Radialis.  
20. 20. The Extensor Carpi Vlnaris.  
21. 21. The Extensor Communis digitorum, on the right side hanging by its Tendons.  
22. 22. The Extensor minimi digiti, on the right side hanging down.  
23. The Extensores Pollicis.  
24. The Supinator Radij brevis.  
25. The Abductor minimi digiti.  
26. The Musculi interossei.  
27. The Abductor Pollicis.  
28. The Longissimus Dorsi.  
29. The Sacrolumbalis.  
30. 30. The Intercostales.  
31. Part of the Serratus major anticus.  
32. The Serratus inferior posticus.  
33. The Glutaeus maximus on the left side in situ, on the right freed from its Origin, and left at its Insertion.  
34. The Glutaeus medius.  
35. The Pyriformis.  
36. The Marsupialis s. Obturator.  
37. 37. Part of the Triceps.  
38. 38. The Gracilis.  
39 The Semimembranosus.  
40. The Seminervosus.  
41. The Biceps femoris.  
42. Part of the Vastus externus.  
43. 43. The Gasterocnemius externus, that of the right side hanging to its Insertion, at the Os Calcis.  
44. The Gasterocnemius Internus.  
45. Part of the flexor Digitorum perforatus.  
46. The fleshy part of the flexor Digitorum perforatus.  
47. The flexor Ossis Pollicis, together with the Abductor Pollicis, raised from its Origin, and hanging down.  
48. The Musculi Lumbricales.    

The fifth Figure  

Represents the Sceleton, or the Bones.  
1. THE Os Frontis.  
2. The Os Bregmatis.  
3. Part of the Os Occipitis.  
4. Os Temporale, seu Squammosum.  
5. Os Jugale, seu Zygomaticum.  
6. The first Bone of the Upper Jaw.  
7. The Os Lachrymale.  
8. The Os Narium.  
9 The fourth Bone of the Upper Jaw.  
10. The upper part of the Os Sphaenoides.  
11. The lower Jaw. 

a. The Processus Condyloides of the lower Jaw.  
b. The Processus Corone.  
c. The Coronal Suture.  
d. The Sutura Ossis Temporalis, seu Squammosi.  
e. A Foramen for the passing the Nerves, and the Blood Vessels in the upper Jaw.  
f. A like Foramen in the under Jaw.  
g. Where the Skull was sawed, to take out the Brain.  
h. The Transverse Processes of the Vertebrae of the Neck.  
i. i. The Oblique ascending and descending Processes of the Neck.    
12. 12. The Vertebrae of the Neck.  
13. 13. The Claviculae or Collar Bones. 

K. K. The Connection of the Claviculae, to the Spina Scapulae.    
14.14. The Internal parts of the Scapula. 

l. l. The Processus Chorocoides Scapulae.    
15. 15. The Os Humeri. 

†. †. A Sinus for receiving the External Tendon of the head of the Biceps.  
m. m. A Sinus for receiving the Prominence (n.n.) of the Vlna upon bending the Arm.    
16. 16. The Vlna. 

o. Part of the Olecranon of the Vlna of the left Arm.    
17. 17. The Radius. 

p. A Prominence of the Radius, to which the internal great Tendon of the Musculus Biceps is inserted.    
18. 18. The Bones of the Carpus, which in a great measure were Cartilaginous.  
19 19 The Bones of the Metacarpus.  
20. 20. The Bones of the Thumb.  
21. 21. The Bones of the Fingers.  
22. 22. The Sternum or Os Pectoris.  
23. The Cartilago Ensiformis. 

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9 10. 11. 12. 13. The Thirteen Ribs of each side,    
24. The Vertebrae of the Back.  
25. The Vertebrae of the Loins. 

q. The Transverse Processes of the Vertebrae of the Loins.  
r. The Foramina for the passage of the Nerves.    
26. The Os Sacrum.  
27. The Os Coccygis.  
28. 28. The Os Ilium.  
29. The Os Pubis.  
30. The Os Ischij. 

s. s. The Cartilaginous Conjunction of the Os Ilium with the Os Pubis and Ischij at the Acetabulum.  
t. t. The large Foramen of the Os Pubis and Ischij.    
31. 31. The Os femoris. 

v. v. The Head of the Os femoris in the Acetabulum.  
w. w. The Great Trochanter, which was Cartilaginous.  
X. The lesser Trochanter.    
32. 32. The Patella, which was Cartilaginous.  
33. 33. The Tibia.  
34. 34. The Fibula.  
35. 35. The Os Calcis.  
36. 36. The Astragalus.  
37. The Os Cubiforme.  
38. The Os Naviculare, seu Cuneiforme majus.  
39 The Ossa Cuneiformia minora.  
40. 40. The Ossa Metatarsi.  
41. 41. The Ossa Digitorum.  
42. 42. The Bones of the Great Toe. 

y. The Malleolus externus.  
z. The Malleous internus.  
**** Signify, that those Parts were Cartilaginous.      

The sixth Figure  

Represents the Stomach, Intestines, Pancreas, Spleen, Liver, etc.  
A. A. THE back side of the Stomach, it being turned upwards.  
B. Part of the Oesophagus or Gullet, before it joins with the upper or left Orisice of the Stomach.  
C. The right Orisice of the Stomach, or Pylorus.  
a. a. The Extremities of the Vasa Brevia, which pass between the Spleen and the Stomach.  
b. b. etc. Divers Lymphatic Glands on the Stomach.  
D. The Superior Coronary Arteries and Veins, and their Ramifications.  
E. E. The Inferior Coronary Blood Vessels of the Stomach, which sends Branches also to the Omentum.  
F. F. The Omentum or Caul turned up, to show it's lower Leaf.  
G. G. The Liver, like the Humane; and not divided into Lobes, as 'tis in Apes.  
c. A small Lobe of the Liver at the entrance of the Vena Porta.  
d. The Fissure or Cleft in the Liver at the entrance of the umbilical Vein.  
f. f. The Gall Bladder.  
H. The beginning of the Duodenum.  
I. I. The Pancreas.  
g. g. The Blood Vessels of the Spleen, especially a Branch of the Vena Porta.  
K. K. The Spleen.  
L. L. L. The Small Guts.  
M. The Ileon just before it enters the Colon.  
N. The beginning of the Colon.  
h. h. One of the Ligaments of the colon.  
O. O. The Caecum, or Appendicula Vermiformis.  
P. P. The Colon in its whole Progress, to the Rectum.  
i. i. Part of the mesentery.  
k. k. The Glands of the mesentery.  
l. That part of the mesentery, which is connected to the Caecum, or the Mesocaecum.  
m. The Mesocolon, or that Part of the mesentery that is fastened to the Colon.  
Q. The upper part of the Intestinum Rectum.    

The seventh Figure  

Shows the Organs of GENERATION.  
A. THE back part of the Bladder of Urine, the greatest part of the Bladder being cut off.  
B. The Penis.  
C. C. The two ureters.  
D. D. The Vasa Deferentia.  
E. E. The Vesiculae Seminales.  
F. The Glandulae Prostatae, or Corpus Glandosum.  
G. The Bulb of the Cavernous Body of the Vrethra, covered with the Musculus accelerator Vrinae seu Spermatis. 

a. a. The two Productions of the last mentioned Muscle, which are inserted to the two Cavernous Bodies of the Penis, on each side the Vrethra, by which means that part of the Vrethra is compressed, and its Contents forced out.  
b. b. The beginning of the two Cavernous Bodies of the Penis.    
H. The Cavernous Body of the Vrethra.  
i. One of the Transverse Muscles of the Penis, called the Third Pair.  
K. K. The Musculi Directores Penis.    

The Eighth Figure  

Exhibits part of the Musculus Latissimus Dorsi dissected.  
A. A. THAT part of the Muscle that lies on the Back, as in Humane Bodies.  
B. It's Tendon, which is inserted to the Os Humeri, as in Men.  
c. The Tendinous Extremity of a fleshy Production of this Muscle, which is implanted on the Internal Protuberance of the Os Humeri of this Animal; as 'tis also in Apes and Monkeys.    

The ninth Figure  

Represents the urinary Parts and Organs of Generation.  
A. THE left Kidney entire.  
a. a. The Membrana Adiposa, partly freed from the Kidney, and turned back.  
B. The Right Kidney opened, to show its Glandulous Substance, and urinary Tubes, and the Pelvis.  
b The Tubuli Vrinarij which arise from the Glandulous Substance, and like Lines drawn from a Circumference to a Centre, pass to the Fimbria or Edge c c, in Man to the several Papille, where their Orifices open and empty themselves into the Pelvis.  
c. c. The said Fimbria, of a Semicircular Figure, where the Extremes of the urinary Tubes discharge the Urine into the Pelvis, or rather Funnel of the kidneys.  
d. The Pelvis or Infundibulum: For being large here in the Kidney, and running into a long slender Stem in the ureter, it more properly represents a Funnel, and serves for the Conveying the Urine thence into the Bladder.  
C. C. The Glandulae Renales.  
D. D. The Descending Trunk of the Arteria Magna or Aorta, below the Diaphragm.  
d. The Caeliac Artery.  
d. The Arteria Mesenterica superior.  
g. The Arteria Mesenterica inferior.  
E. The Descending Trunk of the Vena Cava.  
F. F. The Emulgent Arteries.  
f. f. The Emulgent Veins.  
G. G. The ureters.  
H. The Bladder of Urine.  
h. h. The Spermatick Veins which discharge themselves into the Vena Cava, and the left Emulgent, as in Man.  
i. The Spermatick Arteries, as they arise from the forepart of the Trunk of the Aorta.  
J. J. The Vasa Praeparantia Pampiniformia, seu Corpora Pyramidalia.  
K. K. The Testes or Stones, which appear here flaccid, having been kept some time, before the figure was taken.  
L. L. The Epididymis, making several Convolutions on the body of the Testes.  
M. Part of the Cremaster Muscle.  
N. N. The Vasa Deferentia.  
O. O. The Vesiculae Seminales.  
P. The Prostates or Corpus Glandosum.  
Q. The Musculus Erector Penis of the right side.  
R. The upper part or Dorsum Penis.  
S. The Corpora Cavernosa Penis, cut transverse.  
T. The Vrethra.  
k. k. The main Trunk of the Iliac Artery and Vein.  
l. l. The umbilical Arteries.  
m. m. The Artery that goes to the Penis.  
n. n. The Artery that goes to the Bladder of Urine.  
o. The internal Iliac Vein and Artery.  
p. The external Iliac Vein and Artery.  
q. The Vena Pudenda seu Penis.  
r. r. The Nerves of the Penis.  
s. s. The Arteries of the Penis.    

The tenth Figure  

Demonstrates the Parts of the Thorax with the Arteria Asperae and Larynx.  
A. THE forepart of the Os Hyoides.  
a. a. It's two ends, that are connected to the two Superior long Processes of the Cartilago Scutiformis.  
B. The Epiglottis.  
C. The Cartilago Scutiformis.  
b. The Prominent part of the Annulary Cartilege.  
D. D. The Musculi Hyothyroidei.  
E. E. The Musculi Sternothyroidei.  
c. c. The Musculi Cricothyroidei.  
F. The Arteria Aspera, or Windpipe.  
G. It's division, where it passes to the right and left Lobes of the Lungs.  
H. H. The Lungs.  
J. The Cone of the Heart.  
K. The right Ventricle of the Heart here opened, so that part of the Polypus contained there, came in view.  
L. Part of the Pericardium, on the Basis or upper part of the Heart.  
M. M. The Thymus, lying on the Pericardium.  
N. The Mediastinum freed from the Sternum, and turned to the right side.  
O. O. The two Subclavian Arteries.  
P. The Carotid Arteries.    

The eleventh Figure  

Shows the Polypus or Coagulated Blood found in the left Venticle of the Heart.  
A. THAT part contained in the Ventricle.  
B. Three Impressions, form by the Semilunary Valves.  
C. That part, that lay in the Aorta.  
D. That part that passed into the descending Trunk of the Aorta.  
E. Those Ramuli of it that lay in the ascendent Branches of the Aorta.    

The twelfth Figure  

The Polypus found in the right Ventricle of the Heart.  
A. THAT part contained in the Ventricle.  
B. The Impressions made by the Valvulae sigmoides.  
C. The Branches leading to the right and left Lobes of the Lungs.    

The thirteenth Figure  

Represents the Basis of the Brain with the Medulla Oblongata, and the Nerves and Arteries cut off.  
A. A. THE two anterior or fore Lobes of the Brain.  
B. B. The two posterior or hinder Lobes of the Brain.  
a.a. Two depressions in the fore Lobes caused by the rising of the Frontal bone, that composes the upper part of the Orbit of the Eye; which in this Animal, and in Monkeys, is more eminent than in Man.  
b. b. The division of the right and left Hemisphere of the Brain, where the Palx is placed. This forepart of the Brain in this Animal appeared somewhat flatter than in Man.  
C. C. The Cerebellum.  
D. The Principium Medullae, Spinalis, or that part of the Caudex Medullaris, where the Corpora Pyramidalia and Olivaria are placed, as in an Humane Brain.  
E. E. The Protuberantia Annularis, or Pons Verolij.  
e. e. The Carotid Arteries.  
f. f. The Vertebral Arteries.  
g. The Cervical Artery.  
h. The Communicant Branches between the Cervical and Carotid Arteries.  
i. A small Artery descending down the Spinal Marrow.  
k. The Infundibulum.  
l. l. The Glandulae duae albae pone Infundibulum,, or rather two Medullary Protuberances, there.  
m. m. Parts of the Crura Medullae Oblongatae before they unite under the Pons Verolij, or Annular Protuberance.  
1. The Olfactory, or first pair of Nerves.  
2. The Optic, or second pair of Nerves.  
3. The Nervi Oculorum motorij, or third pair of Nerves.  
4. The Pathetic, or fourth pair of Nerves.  
5. The fifth pair of Nerves.  
6. The sixth pair of Nerves.  
7. The Auditory, or seventh pair of Nerves.  
8. The Par Vagum, or eighth pair of Nerves.  
9 The ninth pair of Nerves.  
10. The tenth pair of Nerves, which may be reckoned rather the first pair of the Neck.  
** The Nervus accessorius, that goes to the eighth pair, or Par Vagum.    

The fourteenth Figure.  

Represents the inward Parts of the Brain, as divided by an Horizontal Section; where the Basis of the Brain is reflected upwards.  
A. A. PArts of the hinder Lobes of the Brain.  
B. B. The upper part of the Brain next its Hemispheres, divided from the lower.  
C. C. The lower part next the Basis, reflected or turned up.  
a. a. The Cortical or Cinericious part of the Brain, which is Glandulous.  
b. b. The Medullary part, that runs up between the Cortical, and is Nervous.  
D. The Corpus Transversale.  
E. The Fornix.  
e. e. The Crura Fornicis.  
f. The two Roots of the Fornix.   
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
   

A PHILOLOGICAL ESSAY Concerning the PIGMIES, THE CYNOCEPHALI, THE SATYRS and SPHINXES OF THE ANCIENTS,  
Wherein it will appear that they were all either APES or MONKEYS; and not MEN, as formerly pretended.  
By Edward Tyson M. D.   

A Philological Essay Concerning the PIGMIES OF THE ANCIENTS.  
HAVING had the Opportunity of Dissecting this remarkable Creature, which not only in the outward shape of the Body, but likewise in the structure of many of the Inward Parts, so nearly resembles a Man, as plainly appears by the Anatomy I have here given of it, it suggested the Thought to me, whether this sort of Animal, might not give the Foundation to the Stories of the Pigmies? and astord an occasion not only to the Poets, but Historians too, of inventing the many Fables and wonderful and merry Relations, that are transmitted down to us concerning them? I must confess, I could never before entertain any other Opinion about them, but that the whole was a Fiction: and as the first Account we have of them, was from a Poet, so that they were only a Creature of the Brain, produced by a warm and wanton Imagination, and that they never had any Existence or Habitation elsewhere.  
In this Opinion I was the more confirmed, because the most diligent Inquiries of late into all the Parts of the inhabited World, could never discover any such Puny diminutive Race of Mankind. That they should be totally destroyed by the Cranes, their Enemies, and not a Straggler here and there left remaining, was a Fate, that even those Animals that are constantly preyed upon by others, never undergo. Nothing therefore appeared to me more Fabulous and Romantic, than their History, and the Relations about them, that Antiquity has delivered to us. And not only Strabo of old, but our greatest Men of Learning of late, have wholly exploded them, as a mere sigment; invented only to amus●● and divert the Reader with the Comical Narration of their Achievements, believing that there were never any such Creatures in Nature.  
This Opinion had so fully obtained with me, that I never thought it worth the Enquiry, how they came to invent such Extravagant Stories: Nor should I now, but upon the Occasion of Dissecting this Animal: For observing that 'tis called even to this day in the Indian or Malabar Language, Orang-Outang, i.e. a Man of the Woods, or Wild-men; and being brought from Africa, that part of the World, where the Pigmies are said to inhabit; and it's present Stature likewise tallying so well with that of the Pigmies of the Ancients; these Considerations put me upon the search, to inform myself farther about them, and to examine, whether I could meet with any thing that might illustrate their History. For I thought it strange, that if the whole was but a mere Fiction, that so many succeeding Generations should be so fond of preserving a Story, that had no Foundation at all in Nature; and that the Ancients should trouble themselves so much about them. If therefore I can make out in this Essay, that there were such Animals as Pigmies; and that they were not a Race of Men, but Apes; and can discover the Authors, who have forged all, or most of the idle Stories concerning them; and show, how the Cheat in after Ages has been carried on, by embalming the Bodies of Apes, then exposing them for the Men of the Country, from whence they brought them: if I can do this, I shall think my time not wholly lost, nor the trouble altogether useless, that I have had in this Enquiry.  
My Design is not to justify all the Relations that have been given of this Animal, even by Authors of reputed Credit; but, as far as I can, to distinguish Truth from Fable; and herein, if what I assert amounts to a Probability, 'tis all I pretend to. I shall accordingly endeavour to make it appear, that not only the Pigmies of the Ancients, but also the Cynocephali, and Satyrs and Sphinxes were only Apes or Monkeys, not Men, as they have been represented. But the Story of the Pigmies being the greatest Imposture, I shall chiefly concern myself about them, and shall be more concise on the others, since they will not need so strict an Examination.  
We will begin with the Poet Homer, who is generally owned as the first Inventor of the Fable of the Pigmies, if it be a Fable, and not a true Story, as I believe will appear in the Account I shall give of them. Now Homer only mentions them in a Simile, wherein he compares the Shouts that the Trojans made, when they were going to join Battle with the Grecians, to the great Noise of the Cranes, going to fight the Pigmies: he faith 
(a) Homer. Iliad. lib. 3. ver. 4. , 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. i e.  
Quae simul ac fugere Imbres, Hyememque Nivalem  
Cum magno Oceani clangore ferantur ad undas  
Pygmaeis pugnamque Viris, caedesque ferentes.   
Or as Helius Eobanus Hessus paraphrases the whole 
(b) Homeri Ilias Latino Carmine reddita ab Helio Ecbano Hesso. . 
Postquam sub Ducibus digesta per agmina stabant  
Quaeque suis, Equitum turmae, Peditumque Cohortes,  
Obvia torquentes Danais vestigia Troës  
Ibant, sublato Campum clamore replentes:  
Non secus ac cuneata Gruum sublime volantum  
Agmina, dum fugiunt Imbres, ac srigora Brumae,  
Per Coelum matutino clangore feruntur,  
Oceanumque petunt, mortem exitiumque cruentum  
Irrita Pigmaeis moturis arma ferentes.   
By 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 therefore, which is the Passage upon which they have grounded all their fabulous Relations of the Pigmies, why may not Homer mean only Pigmies or Apes like Men. Such an Expression is very allowable in a Poet, and is elegant and significant, especially since there is so good a Foundation in Nature for him to use it, as we have already seen, in the Anatomy of the Orang-Outang. Nor is a Poet tied to that strictness of Expression, as an Historian or Philosopher; he has the liberty of pleasing the Reader's Fancy, by Pictures and Representations of his own. If there be a becoming likeness, 'tis all that he is accountable for. I might therefore here make the same Apology for him, as Strabo 
(c) Strabo Geograph. lib. 1. p. m. 25.  does on another account for his Geography, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, That he said it, not through Ignorance, but to please and delight: Or, as in another place he expresses himself 
(d) Strabo ibid. p. m. 30. , 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Homer did not make this slip through Ignorance of the true History, but for the Beauty of his Poem. So that tho' he calls them Men Pigmies, yet he may mean no more by it, than that they were like Men. As to his Purpose, 'twill serve altogether as well, whether this bloody Battle be fought between the Cranes and Pygmaean Men, or the Cranes and Apes, which from their Stature he calls Pigmies, and from their shape Men; provided that when the Cranes go to engage, they make a mighty terrible noise, and clang enough to fright these little Wights their mortal Enemies. To have called them only Apes, had been flat and low, and lessened the grandieur of the Battle. But this Periphrasis of them, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, raises the Reader's Fancy, and surprises him, and is more becoming the Language of an Heroic Poem.  
But how came the Cranes and Pigmies to fall out? What may be the Cause of this Mortal Feud, and constant War between them? For Brutes, like Men, don't war upon one another, to raise and increase their Glory, or to enlarge their Empire. Unless I can acquit myself herein, and assign some probable Cause hereof, I may incur the same Censure as Strabo 
(e) Strabo Geograph. lib. 2. p. m. 48.  passed on several of the Indian Historians, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, for reviewing the Homerical Fight of the Cranes and Pigmies, which he looks upon only as a fiction of the Poet. But this had been very unbecoming Homer to take a Simile (which is designed for illustration) from what had no Foundation in Nature. His Betrachomyomachia, 'tis true, was a mere Invention, and never otherwise esteemed: But his Geranomachia hath all the likelihood of a true Story. And therefore I shall inquire now what may be the just Occasion of this Quarrel.  
Athenaeus 
(f) Athenaei Deipnosoph. lib. 9 p. m. 393.  out of Philochorus, and so likewise AElian 
(g) AElian. Hist. Animal. lib. 15. cap. 29. , tell us a Story, That in the Nation of the Pigmies the Male-line failing, one Gerana was their Queen; a Woman of an admired Beauty, and whom the Citizens worshipped as a Goddess; but she became so vain and proud, as to prefer her own, before the Beauty of all the other Goddesses, at which they grew enraged; and to punish her for her Insolence, Athenaeus tells us that 'twas Diana, but AElian saith 'twas Juno that transformed her into a Crane, and made her an Enemy to the Pigmies that worshipped her before. But since they are not agreed which Goddess 'twas, I shall let this pass.  
Pomponius Mela will have it, and I think some others, that these cruel Engagements use to happen, upon the Cranes coming to devour the Corn the Pigmies had sowed; and that at last they became so victorious, as not only to destroy their Corn, but them also: For he tells us 
(†) Pomp. Mela de situ Orbis, lib. 3. cap. 8. , Fuere interiùs Pygmaei, minutum genus, & quod pro satis frugibus contra Grues dimicando, defecit. This may seem a reasonable Cause of a Quarrel; but it not being certain that the Pigmies used to sow Corn, I will not insist on this neither.  
Now what seems most likely to me, is the account that Pliny out of Megastheves, and Strabo from Onesicritus give us; and, provided I be not obliged to believe or justify all that they say, I could rest satisfied in great part of their Relation: For Pliny 
(h) Plinij Hist. Nat. lib. 7. cap. 2. p. m. 13  tells us, Veris tempore universo agmine ad mare descendere, & Ova, Pullosque earum Alitum consumere: That in the Springtime the whole drove of the Pigmies go down to the Sea side, to devour the Crane's Eggs and their young Ones. So likewise Onesicritus 
(i) Strab. Geograph. lib. 15. pag. 489.  〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i.e. That there is a fight between the Pigmies and the Cranes (as Homer relates) and the Partridges, which are as big as Geese; for these Pigmies gather up their Eggs, and destroy them; the Cranes laying their Eggs there; and neither their Eggs, nor their Nests, being to be found any where else. 'Tis plain therefore from them, that the Quarrel is not out of any Antipathy the Pigmies have to the Cranes, but out of love to their own Bellies. But the Cranes finding their Nests to be robbed, and their young Ones preyed on by these Invaders, no wonder that they should so sharply engage them; and the least they could do, was to fight to the utmost so mortal an Enemy. Hence, no doubt, many a bloody Battle happens, with various success to the Combatants; sometimes with great slaughter of the long-necked Squadron; sometimes with great effusion of Pygmaean blood. And this may well enough, in a Poet's fancy, be magnified, and represented as a dreadful War; and no doubt of it, were one a Spectator of it, 'twould be diverting enough. 
— Si videas hoc  
Gentibus in nostris, risu quatiere: sed illic,  
Quanquam eadem assiduè spectantur Proelia, ridet  
Nemo, ubi tota cohors pede non est altior uno 
(k) Juvenal. Satyr. 13. vers. 170. .   
This Account therefore of these Campaigns renewed every year on this Provocation between the Cranes and the Pigmies, contains nothing but what a cautious Man may believe; and Homer's Simile in likening the great shouts of the Trojans to the Noise of the Cranes, and the Silence of the Greeks to that of the Pigmies, is very admirable and delightful. For Aristotle 
(l) Aristotle. Hist. Animal. lib. 8. cap. 15. Edit. Scalig.  tell us, That the Cranes, to avoid the hardships of the Winter, take a Flight out of Scythia to the Lakes about the Nile, where the Pigmies live, and where 'tis very likely the Cranes may lay their Eggs and breed, before they return. But these rude Pigmies making too bold with them, what could the Cranes do less for preserving their Offspring than fight them; or at least by their mighty Noise, make a show as if they would. This is but what we may observe in all other Birds. And thus far I think our Geranomachia or Pygmaeomachia looks like a true Story; and there is nothing in Homer about it, but what is credible. He only expresses himself, as a Poet should do; and if Readers will mistake his meaning, 'tis not his fault.  
'Tis not therefore the Poet that is to be blamed, tho' they would father it all on him; but the fabulous Historians in after Ages, who have so oddly dressed up this Story by their fantastical Inventions, that there is no knowing the truth, till one hath pulled off those Masks and Visages, wherewith they have disguised it. For tho' I can believe Homer, that there is a fight between the Cranes and Pigmies, yet I think I am no ways obliged to imagine, that when the Pigmies go to these Campaigns to fight the Cranes, that they ride upon Partridges, as Athenaeus from Basilis an Indian Historian tells us; for, saith he 
(m) Arhenaei Diepn●soph. lib. p. 9 m. 390. , 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. For presently afterwards he tells us from Menecles, that the Pigmies not only fight the Cranes, but the Partridges too, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. This I could more readily agree to, because Onesicritus, as I have quoted him already confirms it; and gives us the same reason for this, as for sighting the Cranes, because they rob their Nests. But whether these Partridges are as big as Geese, I leave as a Quaere.  
Megasthenes methinks in Pliny mounts the Pigmies for this Expedition much better, for he sets them not on a Pegasus or Partridges, but on Rams and Goats: Fama est (saith Pliny 
(n) Plinij Nat. Hist. lib. 7. cap. 2. p. 13. ) insedentes Arietum Caprarumque dorsis, armatis sagittis, veris tempore universo agmine ad mare descendere. And Onesicritus in Strabo tells us, That a Crane has been often observed to fly from those parts with a brass Sword fixed in him, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 
(o) Strabo Geograph. lib. 15. p. 489. . But whether the Pigmies do wear Swords, may be doubted. 'Tis true, Ctesias tells us 
(p) Vide Photij Biblioth. , That the King of India every fifth year sends fifty Thousand Swords, besides abundance of other Weapons, to the Nation of the Cynocephali, (a sort of Monkeys, as I shall show) that live in those Country's, but higher up in the Mountains: But he makes no mention of any such Presents to the poor Pigmies; tho' he assures us, that no less than three Thousand of these Pigmies are the King's constant Guards: But withal tells us, that they are excellent Archers, and so perhaps by dispatching their Enemies at a distance, they may have no need of such Weapons to lie dangling by their sides. I may therefore be mistaken in rendering 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a Sword; it may be any other sharp pointed Instrument or Weapon, and upon second Thoughts, shall suppose it a sort of Arrow these cunning Archers use in these Engagements.  
These, and a hundred such ridiculous Fables, have the Historians invented of the Pigmies, that I can't but be of Strabo's mind 
(q) Strabo Geograph. lib. 11. p. m. 350.  〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i.e. That one may sooner believe Hesiod, and Homer, and the Tragic Poets speaking of their Hero's, than Ctesias and Herodotus and Hellanicus, and such like. So ill an Opinion had Strabo of the Indian Historians in general, that he censures them all as fabulous 
(r) Strabo ibid. lib. 2. p. m. 48. ; 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i.e. All who have wrote of India, for the most part, are fabulous, but in the highest degree Daimachus; then Megasthenes, Onesicritus, and Nearchus, and such like. And as if it had been their greatest Ambition to excel herein, Strabo 
(s) Strabo ibid. lib. 1. p. m. 29.  brings in Theopompus, as bragging, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 That he could foist in Fables into History, better than Herodotus and Ctesias and Hellanicus, and all that have wrote of India. The Satirist therefore had reason to say, 
- Et quicquid Graecia mendax  
Audet in Historia 
(t) Juvenal, satire. X. vers● 174. .   
Aristotle 
(u) Aristotle Hist. Animal. lib. 8. cap. 28.  'tis true, tells us, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i.e. That generally the Beasts are wilder in Asia, stronger in Europe, and of greater variety of shapes in Africa; for as the Proverb saith, Africa always produces something new. Pliny 
(w) Plin. Nat. Hist. lib. 6. cap. 30. p. m. 741.  indeed ascribes it to the Heat of the Climate, Animalium, Hominumque effigies monstriferas, circa extremitates ejus gigni, minimè mirum, artifici ad formanda Corpora, effigiesque caelandas mobilitate igneâ. But Nature never form a whole Species of Monsters; and 'tis not the heat of the Country, but the warm and fertile Imagination of these Historians, that has been more productive of them, than Africa itself; as will father appear by what I shall produce out of them, and particularly from the Relation that Ctesias makes of the Pigmies.  
I am the more willing to instance in Ctesias, because he tells his Story roundly; he no ways minces it; his Invention is strong and fruitful; and that you may not in the least mistrust him, he pawns his word, that all that he writes, is certainly true: And so successful he has been, how Romantic soever his Stories may appear, that they have been handed down to us by a great many other Authors, and of Note too; though some at the same time have looked upon them as mere Fables. So that for the present, till I am better informed, and I am not over curious in it, I shall make Ctesias, and the other Indian Historians, the Inventors of the extravagant Relations we at persent have of the Pigmies, and not old Homer. He calls them, 'tis true, from something of Resemblance of their shape, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉: But these Historians make them to speak the Indian Language; to use the same Laws; and to be so considerable a Nation and so valiant, as that the King of India makes choice of them for his Corpse de Guards; which utterly spoils Homer's Simile, in making them so little, as only to fight Cranes.  
Ctesias' Account therefore of the Pigmies (as I find it in Photius' Bibliotheca 
(x) Photij Bibliothec. Cod. 72. p. m. 145. , and at the latter end of some Editions of Herodotus) is this:  
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  
Narrat praeter ista, in media India homines reperiri nigros, qui Pygmaei appellentur. Eadem hos, qua Inda reliqui, lingua uti, sed valde esse parvos, ut maximi duorum cubitorum, & plerique unius duntaxat cubiti cum dimidio altitudinem non excedant. Comam alere longissimam, ad ipsa usque genua demissam, atque etiam infra, cum barba longiore, quam apud ullos hominum. Quae quidem ubi illis promissior esse coeperit, nulla deinceps veste uti: sed capillos multò infra genua à tergo demissos, barbámque praeter pectus ad pedes usque defluentem, per totum corpus in orbem constipare & cingere, atque ita pilos ipsis suos vestimenti loco esse. Veretrum illis esse crassum ac longum, quod ad ipsos quoque pedum malleolos pertingat. Pygmeos hosce simis esse naribus, & deforms. Ipsorum item oves agnorum nostrorum instar esse; boves & asinos, arietum ferè magnitudine, equos item multósque & caetera jumenta omnia nihilo esse nostris arietibus majora. Tria horum Pygmaeorum millia Indorum regem in suo comitatu habere, quòd sagittarij sint peritissimi. Summos esse justitiae cultores, iisdémque quibus Indi reliqui, legibus parere. Venari quoque lepores vulpésque, non canibus, sed corvis, milvis, cornicibus, aquilis adhibitis.  
In the middle of India (saith Ctesias) there are black Men, they are called Pigmies, using the same Language, as the other Indians; they are very little, the tallest of them being but two Cubits, and most of them but a Cubit and a half high. They have very long hair, reaching down to their Knees and lower; and a Beard larger than any Man's. After their Beards are grown long, they wear no clothes, but the Hair of their Head falls behind a great deal below their Hams; and that of their Beards before comes down to their Feet: then laying their Hair thick all about their Body, they afterwards gird themselves, making use of their Hair for clothes. They have a Penis so long, that it reaches to the Ankle, and the thickness is proportionable. They are flat nosed, and ill favoured. Their Sheep are like Lambs; and their Oxen and Asses scarce as big as Rams; and their Horses and Mules, and all their other Cattle nor bigger. Three thousand Men of these Pigmies do attend the King of India. They are good Archers; they are very just, and use the same Laws as the Indians do. They kill Hares and Foxes, not with Dogs, but with Ravens, Kites, Crows, and Eagles.  
Well, if they are so good Sports-men, as to kill Hares and Foxes with Ravens, Kites, Crows and Eagles, I can't see how I can bring off Homer, for making them fight the Cranes themselves. Why did they not fly their Eagles against them? these would make greater Slaughter and Execution, without hazarding themselves. The only Excuse I have is, that Homer's Pigmies were real Apes like Men; but those of Ctesias were neither Men nor Pigmies; only a Creature begot in his own Brain, and to be found no where else.  
Ctesias was Physician to Artaxerxes Mnemon as Diodorus Siculus 
(y) Diodor. Siculi Bibliothec. lib. 2. p. m. 118.  and Strabo 
(z) Strabo Geograph. lib. 14. p. 451.  inform us. He was contemporary with Xenophon, a little later than Herodotus; and Helvicus in his Chronology places him three hundred eighty three years before Christ: He is an ancient Author, 'tis true, and it may be upon that score valued by some. We are beholden to him, not only for his Improvements on the Story of the Pigmies, but for his Remarks likewise on several other parts of Natural History; which for the most part are all of the same stamp, very wonderful and incredible; as his Mantichora, his Gryphins, the horrible Indian Worm, a Fountain of Liquid Gold, a Fountain of Honey, a Fountain whose Water will make a Man confess all that ever he did, a Root he calls 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, that will attract Lambs and Birds, as the Loadstone does filings of Steel; and a great many other Wonders he tells us: all which are copied from him by AElian, Pliny, Solinus, Mela, Philostratus and others. And Photius concludes Ctesias' Account of India with this passage; 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i.e. These things (saith he) Ctesias writes and feigns, but he himself says all he has wrote is very true. Adding, that some things which be describes, he had seen himself; and the others, he had learned from those that had seen them: That he had omitted a great many other things more wonderful, because he would not seem to those that have not seen them, to write incredibilities. But notwithstanding all this, Lucian 
(a) L●●ian lib. 1. verae Histor. p. m. 373.  will not believe a word he saith; for he tells us that Ctesias has wrote of India, A 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, What he neither saw himself, nor ever heard from any Body else. And Aristotle tells us plainly, he is not fit to be believed: Ev 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 
(b) Arist. Hist. Animal. lib. 8. cap. 28. . And the same Opinion A. Gellius 
(c) A. Gellij Noctes Attic. lib. 9 cap. 4.  seems to have of him, as he had likewise of several other old Greek Historians which happened to fall into his hands at Brundisium, in his return from Greece into Italy; he gives this Character of them and their performance: Erant autem isti omnes libri Graeci, miraculorum fabularumque pleni: res inauditae, incredulae, Scriptores veteres non parvae authoritatis, Aristeas Proconnesius, & Isagonus, & Nicaeensis, & Ctesias, & Onesicritus, & Polystephanus, & Hegesias. Not that I think all that Ctesias has wrote is fabulous; For tho' I cannot believe his speaking Pigmies, yet what he writes of the Bird he calls Bí●●oe● that it would speak Greek and the Indian Language, no doubt is very true; and as H. Stephens 
(d) Hen●. Stephani de Ctesia Historico antiquissimo disquisitio, ad finem Herodoti.  observes in his Apology for Ctesias, such a Relation would seem very surprising to one, that had never seen nor heard of a Parrot.  
But this Story of Ctesias' speaking Pigmies, seems to be confirmed by the Account that Nonnosus, the Emperor Justinian's Ambassador into AEthiopia, gives of his Travels. I will transcribe the Passage, as I find it in Photius 
(e) Photij 〈◊〉 ccd. 3. p. m. 7. , and 'tis as follows:  
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  
Naviganti à Pharsa Nonnoso, & ad extremam usque insularum delato, tale quid occurrit, vel ipso auditu admirandum. Incidit enim in quosdam forma quidem & figura humana, sed brevissimos, & cutem nigros, totúmque pilosos corpus. Sequebantur viros aequales foeminae, & pueri adhuc breviores. Nudi omnes agunt, pelle tantum brevi adultiores verenda tecti, viri pariter ac foeminae: agreste nihil, neque efferum quid prae se ferentes. Quin & vox illis humana, sed omnibus, etiam accolis, prorsus ignota lingua, multoque amplius Nonnosi sociis. Vivunt marinis ostreis', & piscibus è è mari ad insulam projectis. Audaces minimè sunt, ut nostris conspectis hominibus, quemadmodum nos visa ingenti fera, metu perculsi fuerint.  
That Nonnosus sailing from Pharsa, when he came to the farthermost of the Islands, a thing, very strange to be heard of, happened to him; for he lighted on some (Animals) in shape and appearance like Men, but little of stature, and of a black colour, and thick covered with hair all over their Bodies. The Women, who were of the same stature, foolowed the Men: They were all naked, only the Elder of them, both Men and Women, covered their Privy Parts with a small Skin. They seemed not at all fierce or wild; they had a Humane Voice, but their Dialect was altogether unknown to every Body that lived about them; much more to those that were with Nonnosus. They lived upon Sea Oysters, and Fish that were cast out of the Sea, upon the Island. They had no Courage; for seeing our Men, they were frighted, as we are at the sight of the greatest wild Beast.  
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I render here, they had a Humane Voice, not Speech: for had they spoke any Language, tho' their Dialect might be somewhat different, yet no doubt but some of the Neighbourhood would have understood something of it, and not have been such utter Strangers to it. Now 'twas observed of the Orang-Outang, that its Voice was like the Humane, and it would make a Noise like a Child, but never was observed to speak, tho' it had the Organs of Speech exactly form as they are in Man; and no Account that ever has been given of this Animal does pretend that ever it did. I should rather agree to what Pliny 
(f) Plinij Nat. Hist. lib. 6. cap. 30. p. m. 741.  mentions, Quibusdam pro Sermone nutus motusque Membrorum est and that they had no more a Speech, than Ctesias his Cynocephali which could only bark, as the same Pliny 
(g) Plinij Nat. Hist. lib. 7. cap. 2. p. m. 11.  remarks; where he saith, In multis autem Montibus Genus Hominum Capitibus Caninis, ferarum pellibus velari, pro voce latratum edere, unguibus armatum venatu & Aucupio vesci, horum supra Centum viginti Millia fuisse prodente se Ctesias scribit. But in Photius I find, that Ctesias' Cynocephali did speak the Indian Language as well as the Pigmies. Those therefore in Nonnosus since they did not speak the Indian, I doubt, sopke no Language at all; or at least, no more than other Brutes do.  
Ctesias I find is the only Author that ever understood what Language 'twas that the Pigmies spoke: For Herodotus 
(h) Herodot. in Melpomene. pag. 283.  owns that they use a sort of Tongue like to no other, but screech like Bats. He saith, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i.e. These Garamantes hunt the Troglodyte AEthiopians in Chariots with four Horses. The Troglodyte AEthiopians are the swiftest of foot of all Men that ever he heard of by any Report. The Troglodytes eat Serpents and Lizards, and such fort of Reptiles. They use a Language like to no other Tongue, but screech like Bats.  
Now that the Pigmies are Troglodytes, or do live in Caves, is plain from Aristotle 
(i) Arist. Hist. Animal. lib. 8. cap. 15. p. m. 913. , who saith, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. And so Philestratus 
(k) Philostrat in vita Apollon. Tyanaei, lib. 3. cap. 14. p. m. 152.  〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. And methinks Le Compte's Relation concerning the wild or savage Man in Barneo, agrees so well with this, that I shall transcribe it: for he tells us, 
(l) Lewis le Compte Memoirs and Observations on China, p. m. 510.  That in Borneo this wild or savage Man is endued with extraordinary strength; and notwithstanding he walks but upon two Legs, yet he is so swift of foot, that they have much ado to outrum him. People of Quality course him, as we do Stags here: and this sort of hunting is the King's usual divertisement. And Gassendus in the Life of Peiresky, tells us they commonly hunt them too in Angola in Africa, as I have already mentioned. So that very likely Herodotus' Troglodyte AEthiopians may be no other than our Orang-Outang or wild Man. And the rather, because I fancy their Language is much the same: for an Ape will chatter, and make a noise like a Bat, as his Troglodytes did: And they undergo to this day the same Fate of being hunted, as formerly the Troglodytes used to be by the Garamantes.  
Whether those 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which the Nasamones met with (as Herodotus 
(m) Hcrodotus in Euterpe seu lib. 2. p. m. 102.  relates) in their Travels to discover Libya, were the Pigmies; I will not determine: It seems the Nasamones neither understood their Language, nor they that of the Nasamones. However, they were so kind to the Nasamones as to be their Guides along the Lakes, and afterwards brought them to a City, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i.e. in which all were of the same stature with the Guides, and black. Now since they were all little black Men, and their Language could not be understood, I do suspect they may be a Colony of the Pigmies: And that they were no farther Guides to the Nasamones, than that being frighted at the sight of them, they ran home, and the Nasamones followed them.  
I do not find therefore any good Authority, unless you will reckon Ctesias as such, that the Pigmies ever used a Language or Speech, any more than other Brutes of the same Species do among themselves, and what we know nothing of, whatever Democritus and Melampodes in Pliny 
(n) Plnij Nat. Hist. lib. 10. cap. 49. , or Apollonius Tyanaeus in Porphyry 
(o) Porphyrius de Abstinentia, lib. 3. pag.m. 103.  might formerly have done. Had the Pigmies ever spoke any Language intelligible by Mankind, this might have furnished our Historians with notable Subjects for their Novels; and no doubt but we should have had plenty of them.  
But Albertus Magnus, who was so lucky as to guests that the Pigmies were a sort of Apes; that he should afterwards make these Apes to speak, was very unfortunate, and spoiled all; and he does it, methinks, so very awkardly, that it is as difficult almost to understand his Language as his Apes; if the Reader has a mind to attempt it, he will find it in the Margin 
(p) Si qui Homines sunt Silvestres, sicut Pygmeus, non secundum unam rationem nobiscum dicti sunt Homines, sed aliquod habent Hominis in quadam deliberatione & Loquela, etc. A little after adds, Voces quaedam (sc. Animalia) formant ad diversos conceptus quos habent, sicut Homo & Pygmaeus; & quaedam non faciunt hoc, sicut multitudo fere tota aliorum Animalium. Adhuc autem eorum quae e● ratione cogitativa formant voces, quaedam sunt succumbentia, quaedam autem non succumbentia. Dico autem succumbenti●, à conceptu Animae cadentia & mota ad Narurae Instinctum, sicut Pygmeus, qui non, seuqitur rationem Loquelae sed Naturae Instinctum; Homo autem non succumbit sed sequitur rationem. Albert. Magn. de Animal. lib 1. cap. 3. p.m. 3. .  
Had Albertus only asserted, that the Pigmies were a sort of Apes, his Opinion possibly might have obtained with less difficulty, unless he could have produced some body that had heard them talk. But Ulysses Aldrovandus 
(q) Vlys. Aldrovandi Ornitholeg. lib. 20. p.m. 344.  is so far from believing his Ape Pigmies ever spoke, that he utterly denys, that there were ever any such Creatures in being, as the Pigmies, at all; or that they ever fought the Cranes. Cum itaque Pygmaeos (saith he) dari negemus, Grues etiam cum iis Bellum gerere, ut fabulantur, negabimus, & tam pertinaciter id negabimus, ut ne jurantibus credemus.  
I find a great many very Learned Men are of this Opinion: And in the first place, Strabo 
(r) Strabo Geograph. lib. 17. p. m. 565.  is very positive; 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i.e. No Man worthy of belief did ever see them. And upon all occasions he declares the same. So Julius Caesar Scaliger 
(s) Jul. Caes. Scaliger. Comment. in Arist. Hist. Animal. lib. 8. §. 126. p. m. 914.  makes them to be only a Fiction of the Ancients, At haec omnia (saith he) Antiquorum sigmenta & merae Nugae, si exstarent, reperirentur. At cum universus Orbis nunc nobis cognitus sit, nullibi haec Naturae Excrement● reperiri certissimum est. And Isaac Casanbon 
(t) Isaac Causabo● Notae & Castigat. in lib. 1. Strabonis Geograph. p. m. 38.  ridicules such as pretend to justify them: Sic nostra aetate (saith he) non desunt, qui eandem de Pygmaeis lepidam fabellam renovent; ut qui etiam è Sacris Literis, si Deo placet, fidem illis conentur astruere. Legi etiam Bergei cujusdam Galli Scripta, qui se vidisse diceret. At non ego credulus illi, illi inquam Omnium Bipedum mendacissimo. I shall add one Authority more, and that is of Adrian Spigelius, who produces a Witness that had examined the very place, where the Pigmies were said to be; yet upon a diligent enquiry, he could neither find them, nor hear any tidings of them. Spigelius 
(u) Adrian. Spigelij de Corporis Humani fabrica, lib. 1. cap. 7. p. m. 15.  therefore tells us, Hoc loco de Pygmaeis dicendum erat, qui 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 dicti à statura, quae ulnam non excedunt. Verùm ego Poetarum fabulas esse crediderim, pro quibus tamen Aristoteles minimè haberi vult, sed veram esse Historiam. 8. Hist Animal. 12. asseverat. Ego quo minùs hoc statuam, tum Authorilate primùm Doctissimi Strabonis 1. Geograph. coactus sum, tum potissimùm nunc moveor, quod nostro tempore, quo nulla Mundi pars est, quam Nautarum Industria non perlustrarit, nihil tamen unquam simile aut visum est, aut anditum. Accedit quod Franciscus Alvarez Lusitanus, qui ea ipsa loca peragravit, circa quae Aristoteles Pygmaeos esse scribit, nullibi tamen tam parvam Gentam à se conspectam tradidit, sed Populum esse Mediocris staturae, & AEthiopes tradit.  
I think myself therefore here obliged to make out, that there were such Creatures as Pigmies, before I determine what they were, since the very being of them is called in question, and utterly denied by so great Men, and by others too that might be here produced. Now in the doing this, Aristotle's Assertion of them is so very positive, that I think there needs not a greater or better Proof; and it is so remarkable a one, that I find the very Enemies to this Opinion at a loss, how to shift it off. To lessen its Authority they have interpolated the Text, by soisting into the Translation what is not in the Original; or by not translating at all the most material possage, that makes against them; or by miserably glozing it, to make him speak what he never intended: Such unfair dealings plainly argue, that at any rate they are willing to get rid of a Proof, that otherwise they can neither deny, or answer.  
Aristotle's Text is this, which I shall give with Theodorus Gaza's Translation: for discoursing of the Migration of Birds, according to the Season of the Year, from one Country to another, he saith 
(w) Aristotel. Hist. Animal lib. 8. cap. 12. :  
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  
Jam ab Autumnali AEquinoctio ex Ponto, Locisque frigidis fugiunt Hyemem futuram. A Verno autem ex tepida Regione ad frigidam sese conferunt, aestûs metu futuri: & alia de locis vicinis discedunt, alia de ultimis, prope dixerim, ut Grues faciunt, quae ex Scythicis Campis ad Paludes AEgypto superiores, unde Nilus profluit, veniunt, quo in loeo pugnare cum Pygmaeis dicuntur. Non enim id fabula est, sed certè, genus tum hominum, tum etiam Equorum pustillum (ut dicitur) est, deguntque in Cavernis, unde Nomen Troglodytae à subeundis Cavernis accepere.  
In English 'tis thus: At the Autumnal AEquinox they go out of Pontus and the cold Country's to avoid the Winter that is coming on. At the Vernal AEquinox they pass from hot Countries into cold ones, for fear of the ensuing Heat; some making their Migrations from nearer places; others from the most remote (as I may say) as the Cranes do: for they come out of Scythia to the Lakes above Egypt, whence the Nile does flow. This is the place, whereabout the Pigmies dwell: For this is no Fable, but a Truth. Both they and the Horses, as 'tis said, are a small kind. They are Troglodytes, or live in Caves.  
We may here observe how positive the Philosopher is, that there are Pigmies; he tells us where they dwell, and that 'tis no Fable, but a Truth. But Theodorus Gaza has been unjust in translating him, by foisting in, Quo in loco pugnare cum Pygmaeis dicuntur, whereas there is nothing in the Text that warrants it: As likewise, where he expresses the little Stature of the Pigmies and the Horses, there Gaza has rendered it, Sed certè Genus tum. Hominum, tum etiam Equorum pusillum. Aristotle only saith, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 He neither makes his Pigmies Men, nor saith any thing of their fight the Cranes; tho' here he had a fair occasion, discoursing of the Migration of the Cranes out of Scythia to the Lakes above Egypt, where he tells us the Pigmies are. Cardan 
(x) Cardan de Rerum varietate, lib. 8. cap. 40. p. m. 153.  therefore must certainly be out in his guess, that Aristotle only asserted the Pigmies out of Compliment to his Friend Homer; for surely than he would not have forgot their fight with the Cranes; upon which occasion only Homer mentions them 
(*) Apparet ergo (saith Cardan) Pygmaeorum Historiam esse fabulosam, quod & Strabo sentit, & nosird aetas, cum omnia nunc fermè orbis mirabilia innotuerint, declarat. Sed quod tantum Philosophum decepit, fuit Homeri Auctoritas non apudillum levis . I should rather think that Aristotle, being sensible of the many Fables that had been raised on this occasion, studiously avoided the mentioning this fight, that he might not give countenance to the Extravagant Relations that had been made of it.  
But I wonder that neither Casaubon nor duval in their Editions of Aristotle's Works, should have taken notice of these Mistakes of Gaza, and corrected them. And Gesner, and Aldrovandus, and several other Learned Men, in quoting this place of Aristotle, do make use of this faulty Translation, which must necessarily lead them into Mistakes, Sam. Bochartus 
(y) Bocharti Hierozoic. S. de Animalib. S. Script. part. Posterior. lib. 1. cap. 11. p. m. 76.  tho' he gives Aristotle's Text in Greek, and adds a new Translation of it, he leaves out indeed the Cranes fight with the Pigmies, yet makes them Men, which Aristotle does not; and by anti-placing, it aiunt, he renders Aristotle's Assertion more dubious; Neque enim (saith he in the Translation) ●est fabula, sed reverâ, ut aiunt, Genus ibi parvum est tam Hominum quam Equorum. Julius Caesar Scaliger in translating this Text of Aristotle, omits both these Interpretations of Gaza; but on the other hand, is no less to be blamed in not translating at all the most remarkable passage, and where the Philosopher seems to be so much in earnest; as, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, this he leaves wholly out, without giving us his reason for it, if he had any: And Scaliger's 
(z) Scaliger. Comment. in Arist. Hist. Animal. lib. 8. p. m. 914.  insinuation in his Comment, viz. Negat esse fabulam de his (so. Pygmeis) Herodotus, at Philosophus semper moderatus & prudens ctiam addidit, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, is not to be allowed. Nor can I assent to Sir Thomas Brown's 
(a) Sir Thomas Brouns Pseudodoxia, or, Inquiries into Vulgar Errors, lib. 4. cap. 11.  remark upon this place; Where indeed (saith he) Aristotle plays the Aristotle; that is, the wary and evading Assertor; for tho' with non est fabula he seems at first to confirm it, yet at last he claps in, sicut aiunt, and shakes the belief he placed before upon it. And therefore Scaliger (saith he) hath not translated the first, perhaps supposing it surreptitious, or unworthy so great an Assertor. But had Scaliger known it to be surreptitious, no doubt but he would have remarked it; and then there had been some Colour for the Gloss. But 'tis unworthy to be believed of Aristotle, who was so wary and cautious, that he should in so short a passage, contradict himself; and after he had so positively affirmed the Truth of it, presently doubt it. His 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 therefore must have a Reference to what follows, Pusillum genus, ut aiunt, ipsi atque etiam Equi, as Scaliger himself translates it.  
I do not here find Aristotle asserting or confirming any thing of the fabulous Narrations that had been made about the Pigmies. He does not say that they were 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉; he only calls them 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. And discoursing of the Pigmies in a place, where he is only treating about Brutes, 'tis reasonable to think, that he looked upon them only as such. This is the place where the Pigmies are; this is no sable, saith Aristotle, as 'tis that they are a Dwarfish Race of Men; that they speak the Indian Language; that they are excellent Archers; that they are very Just; and abundance of other Things that are fabulously reported of them; and because he thought them Fables, he does not take the least notice of them, but only saith, This is no Fable, but a Truth, that about the Lakes of Nile such Animals, as are called Pigmies, do live. And, as if he had foreseen, that the abundance of Fables that Ctesias (whom he saith is not to be believed) and the Indian Historians had invented about them, would make the whole Story to appear as a Figment, and render it doubtful, whether there were ever such Creatures as Pigmies in Nature; he more zealously asserts the Being of them, and assures us, That this is no Fable, but a Truth.  
I shall therefore now inquire what sort of Creatures these Pigmies were; and hope, so to manage the Matter, as in a great measure, to abate the Passion these Great Men have had against them: for, no doubt, what has incensed them the most, was, the fabulous Historians making them a part of Mankind, and then inventing a hundred ridiculous Stories about them, which they would impose upon the World as real Truths. If therefore they have Satisfaction given them in these two Points, I do not see, but that the Business may be accommodated very fairly; and that they may be allowed to be Pigmies, tho' we do not make them Men.  
For I am not of Gesner's mind, Sed veterum millus (saith he 
(b) Gesner. Histor. Quadruped. p. m. 885. ) aliter de Pygmaeis scripsit, quam Homunciones esse. Had they been a Race of Men, no doubt but Aristotle would have informed himself farther about them. Such a Curiosity could not but have excited his Inquisitive Genius, to a strictrer Enquiry and Examination; and we might easily have expected from him a larger Account of them. But finding them, it may be, a sort of Apes, he only tells us, that in such a place these Pigmies live.  
Herodotus 
(c) Herodot. Melpomene seu lib. 4. p. m. 285.  plainly makes them Brutes: For reckoning up the Animals of Libya, he tells us, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 (in the Margin 'tis 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i.e. That there are here prodigious large Serpents, and Lions, and Elephants, and Bears, and Asps, and Asses that have horns, and Cynocephali, (in the Margin 'tis Acephali) that have Eyes in their Breast, (as is reported by the Libyans) and wild Men, and wild Women, and a great many other wild Beasts that are not fabulous. 'Tis evident therefore that Herodotus his 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 are only 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or wild Beasts; and tho' they are called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, they are no more Men than our Orang-Outang, or Homo Sylvestris, or wild Man, which has exactly the same Name, and I must confess I can't but think is the same Animal: and that the same Name has been continued down to us, from his Time, and it may be from Homer's.  
So Philostratus speaking of AEthiopia and Egypt, tells us 
(d) Philostratus in vita Apollon. Tyanaei, lib. 6. cap. 1. p. m. 258. , 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. e. Here are bred wild Beasts that are not in other places; and black Men, which no other Country affords: and amongst them is the Nation of the Pigmies, and the BARKERS, that is, the Cynocephali. For tho' Philostratus is pleased here only to call them Barkers, and to reckon them, as he does the Black Men and the Pigmies amongst the wild Beasts of those Country's; yet Ctesias, from whom Philostratus has borrowed a great deal of his Natural History, styles them Men, and makes them speak, and to perform most notable Feats in Merchandising. But not being in a merry Humour it may be now, before he was aware, he speaks Truth: For Caelius Rhodiginus' 
(e) Caelij Rhadigini Lection. Antiq. lib. 17. cap. 13.  Character of him is, Philostratus omnium qui unquam Historiam conscripserunt, mendacissimus.  
Since the Pigmies therefore are some of the Brute Beasts that naturally breed in these Countries, and they are pleased to let us know as much, I can easily excuse them a Name. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, or Orang-Outang, is alike to me; and I am better pleased with Homer's 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 than if he had called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Had this been the only Instance where they had misapplied the Name of Man, methinks I could be so good natured, as in some measure to make an Apology for them. But finding them so extravagantly loose, so wretehedly whimsical, in abusing the Dignity of Mankind, by giving the Name of Man to such monstrous Productions of their idle Imaginations, as the Indian Historians have done, I do not wonder that wise Men have suspected all that comes out of their Mint, to be false and counterfeit.  
Such are their ' 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, that want Noses, and have only two holes above their Mouth; they eat all things, but they must be raw; they are short lived; the upper part of their Mouths is very prominent. The 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 whose Ears reach down to their Heels, on which they lie and sleep. The 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, that have no Mouths, a civil sort of People, that dwell about the Head of the Ganges; and live upon smelling to boiled Meats and the Odours of Fruits and Flowers; they can bear no ill scent, and therefore can't live in a Camp. The 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that have but one Eye, and that in the middle of their Foreheads; they have Dogs Ears; their Hair stands an end, but smooth on the Breasts. The 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, that have Eyes in their Breasts. The 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 with Heads like Wedges. The 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 with great Heads. The 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, who live a Thousand years. The 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, so swift, that they will outrun a Horse. The 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that go with their Heels forward, and their Toes backwards. The 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, The 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, who have one Leg, but will jump a great way, and are called Sciapodes, because when they lie on their Backs, with this Leg they can keep off the Sun from their Bodies.  
Now Strabo 
(f) Strabo Geograph. lib. 15. p. m. 489. & lib. 2. p. 48. & alibi. , from whom I have collected the Description of these Monstrous sorts of Men, and they are mentioned too by Pliny, Solinus, Mela, Philostratus, and others; and Munster in his Cosmography 
(g) Munster Cosmograph. lib. 6. p. 1151.  has given a figure of some of them; Strabo, I say, who was an Enemy to all such fabulous Relations, no doubt was prejudiced likewise against the Pigmies, because these Historians had made them a Puny Race of Men, and invented so many Romances about them. I can no ways therefore blame him for denying, that there were ever any such Men Pigmies; and do readily agree with him, that no Man ever saw them: and am so far from dissenting from those Great Men, who have denied them on this account, that I think they have all the reason in the World on their side. And to show how ready I am to close with them in this Point, I will here examine the contrary Opinion, and what Reasons they give for the supporting it: For there have been some Moderns, as well as the Ancients, that have maintained that these Pigmies were real Men. And this they pretend to prove, both from Humane Authority and Divine.  
Now by Men Pigmies we are by no means to understand Dwarves. In all Countries, and in all Ages, there has been now and then observed such Miniture of Mankind, or under-sized Men. Cardan 
(h) Cardan de subtilitate, lib. 11. p. 458.  tells us he saw one carried about in a Parrot's Cage, that was but a Cubit high. Nicephorus 
(i) Nicephor. Histor. Ecclesiast. lib. 12. cap. 37.  tells us, that in Theodosius the Emperor's time, there was one in Egypt that was no bigger than a Partridge; yet what was to be admired, he was very Prudent, had a sweet clear Voice, and a generous Mind; and lived Twenty Years. So likewise a King of Portugal sent to a Duke of Savoy, when he married his Daughter to him, an AEthiopian Dwarf but three Palms high 
(k) Happetius in Relat. curiosis, No. 85. p. 677. . And Thevenot 
(l) Thevenot. Voyage de Levant. lib. 2. c. 68  tells us of the Present made by the King of the Abyssins', to the Grand Signior, of several little black Slaves out of Nubia, and the Countries near AEthiopia, which being made Eunuches, were to guard the Ladies of the Seraglio. And a great many such like Relations there are. But these being only Dwarves, they must not be esteemed the Pigmies we are enquiring about, which are represented as a Nation, and the whole Race of them to be of the like stature. Dari tamen integras Pumilionum Gentes, tam falsum est, quam quod falsissimum, saith Harduin 
(m) Jo. Harduini Notae in Plinij Nat. Hist. lib. 6. cap. 22. p. 688. .  
Neither likewise muse it be granted, that tho' in some Climates there might be Men generally of less stature, than what are to be met with in other Countries, that they are presently Pigmies. Nature has not fixed the same standard to the growth of Mankind in all Places alike, no more than to Brutes or Plants. The Dimensions of them all, according to the Climate, may differ. If we consult the Original, viz. Homer that first mentioned the Pigmies, there are only these two Characteristics he gives of them. That they are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 seu Cubitales; and that the Cranes did use to fight them. 'Tis true, as a Poet, he calls them 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which I have accounted for before. Now if there cannot be found such Men as are Cubitales, that the Cranes might probably fight with, notwithstanding all the Romances of the Indian Historians, I cannot think these Pigmies to be Men, but they must be some other Animals, or the whole must be a Fiction.  
Having premised this, we will now inquire into their Assertion that maintain the Pigmies to be a Race of Men. Now because there have been Giants formerly, that have so much exceeded the usual Stature of Man, that there must be likewise Pigmies as defective in the other extreme from this Standard, I think is no conclusive Argument, tho' made use of by some. Old Caspar Bartholine 
(n) Caspar. Bartholin Opusculum de Pygmaeis.  tells us, that because J. Cassanius and others had wrote de Gygantibus, since no Body else had undertaken it, he would give us a Book de Pygmaeis; and since he makes it his design to prove the Existence of Pigmies, and that the Pigmies were Men, I must confess I expected great Matters from him.  
But I do not find he has informed us of any thing more of them, than what Jo. Talentonius, a Professor formerly at Parma, had told us before in his Variarum & Reconditarum Rerum Thesaurus 
(o) Jo. Talentonijs Variar. & recondit. Rerum Thesaurus, lib. 3. cap. 21. , from whom he has borrowed most of this Tract. He has made it a little more formal indeed, by dividing it into Chapters; of which I will give you the Titles; and as I see occasion, some Remarks thereon: They will not be many, because I have prevented myself already. The first Chapter is, De Homuncionibus & Pumilionibus seu Nanis à Pygmaeis distinctis. The second Chapter, De Pygmaeinominibus & Etymologia. The third Chapter, Duplex esse Pygmaeorum Gemus; & primum Genus aliquando dari. He means Dmarves, that are no Pigmies at all. The fourth Chapter is, Alterum Genus, nempe Gentem Pygmaeorum esse, aut saltem aliquando fuisse Autoritatihus Humanis, side tamen dignorum asseritur. 'Tis as I find it printed; and no doubt an Error in the printing. The Authorities he gives, are, Homer, Ctesias, Aristotle, Philostratus, Pliny, Juvenal, Oppian, Baptista Mantuan, Sr. Austin and his Scholiast. Ludovic. Vives, Jo. Laurentius Anania, Job. Cassanius, Job. Talentonius, Gellius, Pomp. Mela, and Olaus Magnus. I have taken notice of most of them already, as I shall of St. Austin and Ludovicus Vives by and by. Jo. Laurentius Anania 
(p) Joh. Laurent. Anania prope finem tractatus primi suae Geograph.  ex Mercatorum relatione tradit (saith Bartholine) eos (sc. Pygmaeos') in Septentrionali Thraciae Parte reperiri, (quae Scythiae est proxima) atque ibi cum Gruibus pugnare. And Job. Cassanius 
(q) Joh. Cassanius libello de Gygantibas, p. 73.  (as he is here quoted) saith, De Pygmaeis fabulosa quidem esse omnia, quae de iis narrari solent, aliquando existimavi. Verùm cum videam non unum vel alterum, sed complures Classicos & probatos Autores de his Homunculis multa in eandem fere Sententiam tradidisse; eò adducor ut Pygmaeos fuisse inficiari non ausim. He next brings in Jo. Talentonius, to whom he is so much beholden, and quotes his Opinion, which is full and home, Constare arbitror (saith Talentonius) 
(r) Jo. Talentonius Variar. & recondit. Rerum Thesaurus, lib 3. cap. 21. p. m. 515.  debere concedi, Pygmaeos non solùm olim fuisse, sed nunc etiam esse, & homines esse, nec parvitatem illis impedimento esse quo minùs sint & homines sint. But were there such Men Pigmies now in being, no doubt but we must have heard of them; some or other of our Sailors, in their Voyages, would have lighted on them. Tho' Aristotle is here quoted, yet he does not make them Men; So neither does Anania: And I must own, tho' Talentonius be of this Opinion, yet he takes notice of the faulty Translation of this Text of Aristotle by Gaza: and tho' the parvity or lowness of Stature, be no Impediment, because we have frequently seen such Dwarf-Men, yet we did never see a Nation of them: For then there would be no need of that Talmudical Precept which Job. Ludolphus 
(s) Job Ludolphi Comment. in Historiam AEthiopic. p. m. 71.  mentions, Nanus ne ducat Nanam, ne fortè oriatur ex iis Digitalis (in Bechor. fol. 45.)  
I had almost forgotten Olaus Magnus, whom Bartholine mentions in the close of this Chapter, but lays no great stress upon his Authority, because he tells us, he is fabulous in a great many other Relations, and he writes but by hear-say, that the Greenlanders fight the Cranes; Tandem (saith Bartholine) neque ideo Pygmaei sunt, si fortè sagittis & hastis, sicut alij homines, Grues conficiunt & occidunt. This I think is great Partiality: For Ctesias, an Author whom upon all turns Bartholine makes use of as an Evidence, is very positive, that the Pigmies were excellent Archers: so that he himself owns, that their being such, illustrates very much that Text in Ezekiel, on which he spends good part of the next Chapter, whose Title is, Pygmaeorum Gens ex Ezekiele, atque rationibus probabilibus adstruitur; which we will consider by and by. And tho' Olaus Magnus may write some things by hear-say, yet he cannot be so fabulous as Ctesias, who (as Lucian tells us) writes what he neither saw himself, or heard from any Body else. Not that I think Olaus Magnus his Greenlanders were real Pigmies, no more than Ctesias his Pigmies were real Men; tho' he vouches very notably for them. And if all that have copied this Fable from Ctesias, must be looked upon as the same Evidence with himself; the number of the Testimonies produced need not much concern us, since they must all stand or fall with him.  
The probable Reasons that Bartholine gives in the fifth Chapter, are taken from other Animals, as Sheep, Oxen, Horses, Dogs, the Indian Formica and Plants: For observing in the same Species some excessive large, and others extremely little, he infers, Quae certè cum in Animalibus & Vegetabilibus fiant; cur in Humana specie non sit probabile, haud video: imprimis cum detur magnitudinis excessus Gigantaeus; cur non etiam dabitur Defectus? Quia ergo dantur Gigantes, dabuntur & Pygmaei. Quam consequentiam ut firmam, admittit Cardanus, 
(t) Cardan●de Rerum varietate, lib. 8. cap. 40.  licet de Pygmaeis hoc tantùm concedat, qui pro miraculo, non pro Gente. Now Cardan, tho' he allows this Consequence, yet in the same place he gives several Reasons why the Pigmies could not be Men, and looks upon the whole Story as fabulous. Bartholine concludes this Chapter thus: Vlteriùs ut Probabilitatem fulciamus, addendum Sceleton Pygmaei, quod Dresdae vidimus inter alia, plurima, servatum in Arce sereniss. Electoris Saxoniae, altitudine infra Cubitum, Ossium soliditate, proportioneque tum Capitis, tum aliorum; ut Embrionem, aut Artificiale quid Nemo rerum peritus suspicari possit. Addita insuper est Inscriptio Veri Pygmaei. I hereupon looked into Dr. Brown's Travels into those Parts, who has given us a large Catalogue of the Curiosities, the Elector of Saxony had at Dresden, but did not find amongst them this Sceleton; which, by the largeness of the Head, I suspect to be the Sceleton of an Orang-Outang, or our wild Man. But had he given us either a Figure of it, or a more particular Description, it had been a far greater Satisfaction.  
The Title of Bartholine's sixth Chapter is, Pygmaeos esse aut fuisse ex variis eorum adjunctis, accidentibus, etc. ab Authoribus descriptis ostenditur. As first, their Magnitude: which he mentions from Ctesias, Pliny, Gellias and Juvenal; and tho' they do not all agree exactly, 'tis nothing. Autorum hic dissensus nullus est (saith Bartholine) etenim sicut in nostris hominibus, it a indubiè in Pygmaeis non omnes ejusdem magnitudinis. 2. The Place and Country: As Ctesias (he saith) places them in the middle of India; Aristotle and Pliny at the Lakes above Egypt; Homer's Scholiast in the middle of Egypt; Pliny at another time saith they are at the Head of the Ganges, and sometimes at Gerania, which is in Thracia, which being near Scythia, confirms (he saith) Anania's Relation. Mela places them at the Arabian Gulls; and Paulus Jovius docet Pygmaeos ultra Japonem esse; and adds, has Autorum dissensiones facile fuerit conciliare; nec mirum diversas relationes à Plinio auditas. For (saith he) as the Tartars often change their Seats, since they do not live in Houses, but in Tents, foe 'tis no wonder that the Pigmies often change theirs, since instead of Houses they live in Caves or Huts, built of Mud, Feathers, and Eggshells. And this mutation of their Habitations he thinks is very plain from Pliny, where speaking of Gerania, he saith, Pygmaeorum Gens fuisse (non jam esse) proditur, creduntque à Gruibus fugatos. Which passage (saith Bartholine) had Adrian Spigelius considered, he would not so soon have left Aristotle's Opinion, because Franc. Alvares the Portuguese did not find them in the place where Aristotle left them; for the Cranee, it may be, had driven them thence. His third Article is, their Habitation, which Aristotle saith is in Caves; hence they are Troglodytes. Pliny tells us they build Huts with Mud, Feathers, and Eggshells. But what Bartholine adds, Eò quod Terrae Cavernas inhabitent, non injuriâ dicti sunt olim Pygmaei, Terrae filii, is wholly new to me, and I have not met with it in any Author before: tho' he gives us here several other significations of the word Terrae filij from a great many Authors, which I will not trouble you at present with. 4. The Form, being flat nosed and ugly, as Ctesias. 5. Their Speech, which was the same as the Indians, as Ctesias; and for this I find he has no other Author. 6. Their Hair; where he quotes Ctesias again, that they make use of it for Clothes. 7. Their Virtues and Arts; as that they use the same Laws as the Indians, are very just, excellent Archers, and that the King of India has Three thousand of them in his Guards. All from Ctesias. 8. Their Animals, as in Ctesias; and here are mentioned their Sheep, Oxen, Asses, Mules, and Horses. 9 Their various Actions; as what Ctesias relates of their kill Hares and Foxes with Crows, Eagles, etc. and fight the Cranes, as Homer, Pliny, Juvenal.  
The seventh Chapter in Bartholine has a promising Title, An Pygmaei sint homines, and I expected here something more to our purpose; but I find he rather endeavours to answer the Reasons of those that would make them Apes, than to lay down any of his own to prove them Men, And Albertus Magnus' Opinion he thinks absurd, that makes them part Men part Beasts; they must be either one or the other, not a Medium between both; and to make out this, he gives us a large Quotation out of Cardan. But Cardan 
(u) Cardan. de Rerum varietate, lib. 8. cap. 40.  in the same place argues that they are not Men. As to Suessanus 
(w) Suessanus Comment, in Arist. de Histor. Animal. lib. 8. cap. 12.  his Argument, that they want Reason, this he will not grant; but if they use it less, or more imperfectly than others (which yet, he saith, is not certain) by the same parity of Reason, Children, the Boeotians, Cumani and Naturals may not be reckoned Men; and he thinks, what he has mentioned in the preceding Chapter out of Ctesias, etc. shows that they have no small use of Reason. As to Suessanus' next Argument, that they want Religion, Justice, etc. this, he saith, is not confirmed by any grave Writer; and if it was, yet it would not prove that they are not Men. For this defect (he saith) might hence happen, because they are forced to live in Caves for fear of the Cranes; and others besides them, are herein faulty. For this Opinion, that the Pigmies were Apes and not Men, he quotes likewise Benedictus Varchius 
(x) Benedict. Varcbius de Monstris. lingua vernacula. , and Job. Tinnulus 
(y) Job. Tinnulus in GlattoChrjsio. , and Paulus Jovius 
(z) Paulus Jovius lib. de Muscovit. Legatione. , and several others of the Moderns, he tells us, are of the same mind. Imprimis Geographici quos non puduit in Mappis Geographicis loco Pygmaeorum simias cum Gruibus pugnantes ridiculè dipinxisse.  
The Title of Bartholine's eighth and last Chapter is, Argumenta corum qui Pygmaeorum Historiam fabulosam censent, recitantur & refutantur. Where he tells us, the only Person amongst the Ancients that thought the Story of the Pigmies to be fabulous was Strabo; but amongst the Moderns there are several, as Cardan, Budaeus, Aldrovandus, Fullerus and others. The first Objection (he saith) is that of Spigelius and others; that since the whole World is now discovered, how happens it, that these Pigmies are not to be met with? He has seven Answers to this Objection; how satisfactory they are, the Reader may judge, if he pleases, by perusing them amongst the Quotations 
(a) Respondes 1. Contrarium testari Mercatorum Relationem apud Ananiam supra Cap. 4. 2. Et licet non invent● essent vivià quolibet, pari j●re Mono●erota & alia negare liceret. 3. Qui maria pernavigant, vix eras pa●cas maritimas lustrant, adeo non terras omnes à mari dissitas. 4. Neque in Oris illos habitare maritimis ex Capite quinto manisestum est. 5. Quis testatum seomnem adhibuisse diligentiam in inquirendo eos ut inve●●●●et. 6 Ita in terra habitant, ut in Antris vitam tolerare dicantur. 7. Si vel maximè omni ab omni●●●●igertia quaesiti fuissent, nec inventi; fieri potest, ut instar Gigantum jam desierint nec sint ampliùs. . Cardan's second Objection (he saith) is, that they live but eight years, whence several Inconveniences would happen, as Cardan shows; he answers that no good Author asserts this; and if there was, yet what Cardan urges would not follow; and instances out of Artemidorus in Pliny 
(b) Psinij Hist. Nat. lib. 7. cap. 2. p. m. 14. , as a Parallel in the Calingae a Nation of India, where the Women conceive when five years old, and do not live above eight. Gesner speaking of the Pigmies, saith, Vitae autem longitudo anni arciter octo ut Albertus refert. Cardan perhaps had his Authority from Alberius, or it may be both took it from this passage in Pliny, which I think would better agree to Apes than Men. But Artemidorus being an Indian Historian, and in the same place telling other Romances, the less Credit is to be given to him. The third Objection, he saith, is of Cornelius à Lapide, who denies the Pigmies, because Homer was the first Author of them. The sourth Objection he saith is, because Author's disser about the Place where they should be: This, he tells us, he has answered already in the fifth Chapter. The fifth and last Objection he mentions is, that but few have seen them. He answers, there are a great many Wonders in Sacred and Profane History that we have not seen, yet must not deny. And he instances in three; As the Formicae Indicae, which are as bigs as great Dogs: The Cornu Plantabile in the Island Goa, which when cut off from the Beast, and flung upon the Ground, will take root like a Cabbage: And the Scotland Geese that grow upon Trees, for which he quotes a great many Authors, and so concludes.  
Now how far Bartholine in this Treatise has made out that the Pigmies of the Ancients were real Men, either from the Authorities he has quoted, or his Reasonings upon them, I submit to the Reader. I shall proceed now (as I promised) to consider the Proof they pretend from Holy Writ: For Bartholine and others insist upon that Text in Ezekiel (Cap. 27. Vers. 11.) where the Vulgar Translation has it thus; Filij Arvad cum Exercitu tuo supra Muros tuos per circuitum, & Pygmaei in Turribus tuis fuerunt; Scuta sua suspenderunt supra Muros tuos per circuitum. Now Talentonius and Bartholine think that what Ctesias relates of the Pigmies, as their being good Archers, very well illustrates this Text of Ezekiel: I shall here transcribe what Sir Thomas Brown 
(c) Sir Thomas Brown's Enquivies into Vulgar Errors, lib. 4. cap. 11. p. 242.  remarks upon it; and if any one requires farther Satisfaction, they may consult Job Ludolphus' Comment on his AEthiopic History 
(d) Comment. in H●st. AEthiopic. p. 73. .  
The second Testimony (saith Sir Thomas Brown) is deduced from Holy Scripture; thus rendered in the Vulgar Translation, Sed & Pygmaei qui erant in turribus tuis, pharetras suas suspenderunt in muris tuis per gyrum: from whence notwithstanding we cannot infer this Assertion, for first the Translators accord not, and the Hebrew word Gammadim is very variously rendered. Though Aquila, Vatablus and Lyra will have it Pygmaei, yet in the Septuagint, it is no more than Watchmen; and so in the Arabic and High-Dutch. In the Chalde, Cappadocians, in Symmachus, Medes, and in the French, those of Gamed. Theodotian of old, and Tremellius of late, have retained the Textuary word; and so have the Italian, Low Dutch and English Translators, that is, the Men of Arvad were upon thy Walls round about, and the Gammadims were in thy Towers.  
Nor do Men only descent in the Translation of the word, but in the Exposition of the Sense and Meaning thereof; for some by Gammadims understand a People of Syria, so called from the City of Gamala; some hereby understand the Cappadocians, many the Medes: and hereof Forerius hath a singular Exposition, conceiving the Watchmen of Tyre, might well be called Pigmies, the Towers of that City being so high, that unto Men below, they appeared in a Cubital Stature. Others expound it quite contrary to common Acception, that is not Men of the least, but of the largest size; so doth Cornelius construe Pygmaei, or Viri Cubitales, that is, not Men of a Cubit high, but of the largest Stature, whose height like that of Giants, is rather to be taken by the Cubit than the Foot; in which phrase we read the measure of Goliath, whose height is said to be six Cubits and a span. Of affinity hereto is also the Exposition of Jerom; not taking Pigmies for D●●arfs, but stout and valiant Champions; not taking the sense of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which signifies the Cubit measure, but that which expresseth Pugils; that is, Men fit for Combat and the Exercise of the Fist. Thus can there be no satisfying illation from this Text, the diversity, or rather contrariety of Expositions and Interpretations, distracting more than confirming the Truth of the Story.  
But why Aldrovandus or Caspar Bartholine should bring in St. Austin as a Favourer of this Opinion of Men Pigmies, I see no Reason. To me he seems to assert quite the contrary: For proposing this Question, An ex propagine Adam vel filiorum No, quaedam genera Hominum Monstrosa prodierunt? He mentions a great many monstrous Nations of Men, as they are described by the Indian Historians, and amongst the rest, the Pigmies, the Sciopodes, etc. And adds, Quid dicam de Cynocephalis, quorum Canina Capita atque ipse Latratus magis Bestias quam Homines confitentur? Sed omnia Genera Hominum, quae dicuntur esse, esse credere, non est necesse. And afterwards so fully expresses himself in favour of the Hypothesis I am here maintaining, that I think it a great Confirmation of it. Name & Simias (saith he) & Cercopithecos, & Sphingas, si nesciremus non Homines esse, sed Bestias, possent isti Historici de sua Curiositate gloriantes velut Gentes aliquas Hominum nobis impunitâ vanitate mentiri. At last he concludes and determines the Question thus, Aut illa, quae talia de quibusdam Gentibus scripta sunt, omnino nulla sunt, aut si sunt, Homines non sunt, aut ex Adam sunt si homines sunt.  
There is nothing therefore in St. Austin that justifies the being of Men Pigmies, or that the Pigmies were Men; he rather makes them Apes. And there is nothing in his Scholiast Ludovicus Vives that tends this way, he only quotes from other Authors, what might illustrate the Text he is commenting upon, and no way asserts their being Men. I shall therefore next inquire into Bochartus' Opinion, who would have them to be the Nubae or Nobae. Hos Nubas Troglodyticos (saith 
(e) Sam. Bochart. Geograph. Sacrae, Part. 1. lib. 2. cap. 23. p.m. 142.  he) ad Avalitem Sinum esse Pygmaeos Veterum multa probant. He gives us five Reasons to prove this. As, 1. The Authority of Hesychius, who saith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. 2. Because Homer places the Pigmies near the Ocean, where the Nubae were. 3. Aristotle places them at the Lakes of the Nile. Now by the Nile Bochartus tells us, we must understand the Astaboras, which the Ancients thought to be a Branch of the Nile, as he proves from Pliny, Solinus and AEthicus. And Ptolemy (he tells us) places the Nubae hereabout 4. Because Aristotle makes the Pigmies to be Troglodytes, and so were the Nubae 5. He urges that Story of Nonnosus which I have already mentioned, and thinks that those that Nonnosus met with, were a Colony of the Nubae; but afterwards adds, Quos tamen absit ut putemus Staturâ fuisse Cubitali, prout Poetae fingunt, qui omnia in majus augent. But this methinks spoils them from being Pigmies; several other Nations at this rate may be Pigmies as well as these Nubae. Besides, he does not inform us, that these Nubae used to fight the Cranes; and if they do not, and were not Cubitales, they can't be Homer's Pigmies, which we are enquiring after. But the Notion of their being Men, had so possessed him, that it put him upon fancying they must be the Nubae; but 'tis plain that those in Nonnosus could not be a Colony of the Nubae; for then the Nubae must have understood their Language, which the Text saith, none of the Neighbourhood did. And because the Nubae are Troglodytes, that therefore they must be Pigmies, is no Argument at all. For Troglodytes here is used as an Adjective ● and there is a sort of Sparrow which is called Passer Troglodytes. Not but that in Africa there was a Nation of Men called Troglodytes, but quite different from our Pigmies. How far Bochartus may be in the right, in guessing the Lakes of the Nile (whereabout Aristotle places the Pigmies) to be the Fountains of the River Astaboras, which in his description, and likewise the Map, he places in the Country of the Avalitae, near the Mossylon Emporium; I shall not inquire. This I am certain of, he misrepresents Aristotle where he tells us 
(f) Bocharti Hierozoici pars Posterior, lib. 1. cap. 11. p. 76. , Quamvis in ea fabula hoc saltem verum esse asserat Philosophus, Pusillos Homines in iis locis degere: for as I have already observed; Aristotle in that Text saith nothing at all of their being Men: the contrary rather might be thence inferred, that they were Brutes. And Bochart's Translation, as well as Gaza's is faulty here, and by no means to be allowed, viz. Vt aiunt, genus ibi parvum est tam Hominum, quam Equorum; which had Bochartus considered, he would not have been so fond it may be of his Nubae. And if the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in Hesychius are such Pigmies as Bochartus makes his Nubae, Quos tamen absit ut putemus staturâ fuisse Cubitali, it will not do our business at all; and neither Homer's Authority, nor Aristotle's does him any Service.  
But this Fable of Men Pigmies has not only obtained amongst the Greeks and Indian Historians: the Arabians likewise tell much such Stories of them, as the same learned Bochartus informs us. I will give his Latin Translation of one of them, which he has printed in Arabic also: Arabes idem (saith 
(g) Bochartus ibid. p.m. 77.  Bochartus) referunt ex cujusdam Graeculi side, qui Jacobo Isaaci filio, Sigariensi fertur ita narrasse. Navigabam aliquando in mari Zingitano, & impulit me ventus in quandam Insulam. In cujus Oppidum cum devenissem, reperi Incolas Cubitalis esse staturae, & plerosque Coclites. Quorum multitudo in me congregata me deduxit ad Regem suum. Jussit is, ut Captivus detinerer; & in quandam Caveae speciem conjectus sum; eos autem aliquando ad bellum instrui cum viderem, dixerunt Hostem imminere, & fore ut propediem ingruerèt. Nec multò post Gruum exercitus in eos insurrexit. Atque ideo erant Coclites, quod eorum oculos hae confodissent. Atque Ego, virgâ assumptâ, in eas impetum feci, & illae avolârunt atque aufugerunt; ob quod facinus in honore fui apud illos. This Author, it seems, represents them under the same Misfortune with the Poet, who first mentioned them, as being blind, by having their Eyes pecked out by their cruel Enemies. Such an Accident possibly might happen now and then, in these bloody Engagements, tho' I wonder the Indian Historians have not taken notice of it. However the Pigmies showed themselves grateful to their Deliverer, in heaping Honours on him. One would guests, for their own sakes, they could not do less than make him their Generalissimo; but our Author is modest in not declaring what they were.  
Isaac Vossius seems to unsettle all, and endeavours utterly to ruin the whole Story: for he tells us, If you travel all over Africa, you shall not meet with either a Crane or pygmy: Se mirari (saith 
(h) Isaac Vossius de Nili aliorumque flumimnum Origine, Cap. 18.  Isaac Vossius) Aristotelem, quod tam seriò affirmet non esse fabellam, quae de Pygmaeis & Bello, quod cum Gruibus gerant, narrantur. Si quis totam pervadat Africam, nullas vel Grues vel Pygmaeos inveniet. Now one would wonder more at Vossius, that he should assert this of Aristotle, which he never said. And since Vossius is so mistaken in what he relates of Aristotle; where he might so easily have been in the right, 'tis not improbable, but he may be out in the rest too: For who has traveled all Africa over, that could inform him? And why should he be so peremptory in the Negative, when he had so positive an Affirmation of Aristotle to the contrary? or if he would not believe Aristotle's Authority, methinks he should Aristophanes', who tells us 
(i) Aristophanes in Nubibus. , 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. 'Tis time to sow when the noisy Cranes take their flight into Libya. Which Observation is likewise made by Hesiod, Theognis, Aratus, and others. And Maximus Tyrius (as I find him quoted in Bochartus) saith, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. i e. Grues per aestatem ex AEgypto abscedentes, quia Calorem pati non possunt, alis velorum instar expansis, per aerem ad Scythicam plagam rectà feruntur. Which fully confirms that Migration of the Cranes that Aristotle mentions.  
But Vossius I find, tho' he will not allow the Cranes, yet upon second Thoughts did admit of Pigmies here: For this Story of the Pigmies and the Cranes having made so much noise, he thinks there may be something of truth in it; and then gives us his Conjecture, how that the Pigmies may be those Dwarves, that are to be met with beyond the Fountains of the Nile; but that they do not fight Cranes but Elephants, and kill a great many of them, and drive a considerable Traffic for their Teeth with the Jagis, who sell them to those of Congo and the Portugese. I will give you Vossius' own words; Attamen (saith 
(k) Isaac Vossius ibid.  he) ut solent fabellae non de nihilo fingi & aliquod plerunque continent veri, id ipsum qnoque ●. ìc factum esse existimo. Certum quippe est ultra Nili fontes multos reperiri Nanos, qui tamen non cum Gruibus, sed cum Elephantis perpetuum gerant bellum. Praecipuum quippe Eboris commercium in regno magni Macoki per istos transigitur Homunciones; habitant in Sylvis, & mira dexteritate Elephantos sagittis conficiunt. Carnibus vescuntur, Dentes verò Jagis divendunt, illi autem Congentibus & Lusitanis.  
Job Ludolphus 
(l) Job Ludolphus in Comment. in Historiam AEthiopicam, p.m. 71.  in his Commentary on his Aethhiopic History remarks, That there was never known a Nation all of Dwarves. Nani quip (saith Ludolphus) Naturae quodam errore ex aliis justae staturae hominibus generantur. Qualis verò ea Gens sit, ex qua ista Naturae Ludibria tantâ copiâ proveniant, Vossium docere oportebat, quia Pumiliones Pumiles alios non gignunt, sed plerunque steriles sunt, experientia teste; ut planè non opus habuerunt Doctores Talmudici Nanorum matrimonia prohibere, ne Digitales ex iis nascerentur. Ludolphus it may be is a little too strict with Vossius for calling them Nani; he may only mean a sort of Men in that Country of less Stature than ordinary. And Dapper in his History of Africa, from whom Vossius takes this Account, describes such in the Kingdom of Mokoko, he calls Mimos, and tells us that they kill Elephants. But I see no reason why Vossius should take these Men for the Pigmies of the Ancients, or think that they gave any occasion or ground for the inventing this Fable, if there was no other reason, this was sufficient, because they were able to kill the Elephants. The Pigmies were scarce a Match for the Cranes; and for them to have encountered an Elephant, were as vain an Attempt, as the Pigmies were guilty of in Philostratus 
(m) Philostratus. Icon, lib. 2. p.m. 817. , who to revenge the Death of Antaeus, having found Hercules napping in Libya, mustered up all their Forces against him. One Phalanx (he tells us) assaulted his left hand; but against his right hand, that being the stronger, two Phalanges were appointed. The Archers and Slingers besieged his feet, admiring the hugeness of his Thighs: But against his Head, as the Arsenal, they raised Batteries, the King himself taking his Post there. They set fire to his Hair, put Reaping-hooks in his Eyes; and that he might not breathe, clapped Doors to his Mouth and Nostrils; but all the Execution that they could do, was only to awake him, which when done, deriding their folly, he gathered them all up into his Lion's Skin, and carried them (Philostratus thinks) to Euristhenes. This Antaeus was as remarkable for his height, as the Pigmies were for their lowness of Stature: For Plutarch 
(n) Plutarch. in vita Q. Sertorij.  tells us, that Q. Sertorius not being willing to trust Common Fame, when he came to Tingis (now Tangier) he caused Antaeus' Sepulchre to be opened, and found his Corpse full threescore Cubits long. But Sertorius knew well enough how to impose upon the Credulity of the People, as is evident from the Story of his white Hind, which Plutarch likewise relates.  
But to return to our Pigmies; tho' most of the great and learned Men would seem to decry this Story as a Fiction and mere Fable, yet there is something of Truth, they think, must have given the first rise to it, and that it was not wholly the product of Fancy, but had some real foundation, tho' disguised, according to the different Imagination and Genius of the Relator: 'Tis this that has incited them to give their several Conjectures about it. Job Ludolphus finding what has been offered at in Relation to the Pigmies, not to satisfy, he thinks he can better account for this Story, by leaving out the Cranes, and placing in their stead, another sort of Bird he calls the Condor. I will give you his own words: Sed ad Pygmaeos (s; aith 
(o) Job Ludolphus Comment. in Historiam suam AEthiopic. p. 73.  Ludolphus) revertamur; fabula de Geranomachia Pygmaeorum seu pugna cum Gruibus etiam aliquid de vero trahere videtur, si pro Gruibus Condoras' intelligas, Aves in interiore Africa maximas, ut fidem penè excedat; aiunt enim quod Ales ista vitulum Elephanti in Aererm extollere possit; ut infra docebimus. Cum his Pygmaeos pugnare, ne pecora sua rapiant, incredibile non est. Error ex eo natus videtur, quod primus Relator, alio vocabulo destitutus, Grues pro Condoris nominârit, sicuti Plautus Picos pro Gryphibus, & Romani Boves lucas pro Elephantis dixere.  
'Tis true, if what Juvenal only in ridicule mentions, was to be admitted as a thing really done, that the Cranes could fly away with a pygmy, as our Kites can with a Chicken, there might be some pretence for Ludovicus' Condor or Cunctor: For he mentions afterwards 
(p) J●b Ludolphus ibi ... pag. 164.  out of P. Job. does Santos the Portugese, that 'twas observed that one of these Condors once flew away with an Ape, Chain, Clog and all, about ten or twelve pounds' weight, which he carried to a neighbouring Wood, and there devoured him. And Garcilasso de la Vega 
(q) Garcilasso de la Vega Royal Comment. of Peru.  relates that they will seize and fly away with a Child ten or twelve years old. But Juvenal 
(r) Juvenal Satyr. 13. ●e●●. 167.  only mentions this in ridicule and merriment, where he saith, 
Ad subitas Thracum volucres, nubemque sonoram  
Pygmaeos parvis currit Bellator in armis:  
Mox impar hosti, raptusque per aera curvis  
Vnguibus à saeuâ fertur grew.   
Besides, were the Condors to be taken for the Cranes, it would utterly spoil the Pygmaeomachia; for where the Match is so very unequal, 'tis impossible for the Pigmies to make the least show of a fight. Ludolphus puts as great hardships on them, to fight these Condors, as Vossius did, in making them fight Elephants, but not with equal Success; for Vossius' Pigmies made great Slaughters of the Elephants; but Ludolphus his Cranes sweep away the Pigmies, as easily as an Owl would a Mouse, and eat them up into the bargain; now I never heard the Cranes were so cruel and barbarous to their Enemies, tho' there are some Nations in the World that are reported to do so.  
Moreover, these Condor's I find are very rare to be met with; and when they are, they often appear single, or but a few. Now Homer's, and the Cranes of the Ancients, are always represented in Flocks. Thus Oppian 
(s) Oppian. lib. 1. de Pij●●bus.  as I find him translated into Latin Verse: 
Et velut AEthiopum veniunt, Nilique fluenta  
Turmatim Palamedis Aves, celsaeeque per altum  
Aera labentes fugiunt Athlanta nivosum,  
Pygmaeos imbelle Genus, parvumque fatigant,  
Non perturbato procedunt ordine densae  
Instruct is volucres obscurant aëra Turmis.  To imagine these Grues a single Gigantic Bird, would much lessen the Beauty of Homer's Simile, and would not have served his turn; and there are none who have borrowed Homer's fancy, but have thought so. I will only farther instance in Baptista Mantuan: 
Pygmaei breve vulgus, iners Plebecula, quando  
Convenere Grues longis in praelia rostris,  
Sublato clamore fremunt, dumque agmine magno  
Hostibus occurrit, tellus tremit Indica, clamant  
Littora, arenarum nimbis absconditur aër;  
Omnis & involvit Pulvis solemque, Polumque,  
Et Genus hoc Hominum naturâ imbelle, quietum,  
Mite, facit Mavors pugnax, immane Cruentum.   
Having now considered and examined the various Opinions of these learned Men concerning this Pygmaeomachia; and represented the Reasons they give for maintaining their Conjectures; I shall beg leave to subjoin my own: and if what at present I offer, may seem more probable, or account for this Story with more likelihood, than what hath hitherto been advanced, I shall not think my time altogether misspent: But if this will not do, I shall never trouble my head more about them, nor think myself any ways concerned to write on this Argument again. And I had not done it now, but upon the occasion of Dissecting this Orang-Outang, or wild Man, which being a Native of Africa, and brought from Angola, tho' first taken higher up in the Country, as I was informed by the Relation given me; and observing so great a Resemblance, both in the outward shape, and, what surprised me more, in the Structure likewise of the inward Parts, to a Man; this Thought was easily suggested to me, That very probably this Animal, or some other such of the same Species, might give the first rise and occasion to the Stories of the Pigmies. What has been the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and rendered this Story so difficult to be believed, I find hath been the Opinion that has generally obtained, that these Pigmies were really a Race of little Men. And tho' they are only Brutes, yet being at first called wild Men, no doubt from the Resemblance they bear to Men; there have not been wanting those especially amongst the Ancients, who have invented a hundred ridiculous Stories concerning them; and have attributed those things to them, were they to be believed in what they say, that necessarily conclude them real Men.  
To sum up therefore what I have already discoursed, I think I have proved, that the Pigmies were not an Humane Species or Men. And tho' Homer, who first mentioned them, calls them 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, yet we need not understand by this Expression any thing more than Apes: And tho' his Geranomachia hath been looked upon by most only as a Poetical Fiction; yet by assigning what might be the true Cause of this Quarrel between the Cranes and Pigmies, and by divesting it of the many fabulous Relations that the Indian Historians, and others, have loaded it with, I have endeavoured to render it a true, at least a probable Story. I have instanced in Ctesias and the Indian Historians, as the Authors and Inventors of the many Fables we have had concerning thém: Particularly, I have Examined those Relations; where Speech or Language is attributed to them; and shown, that there is no reason to believe, that they ever spoke any Language at all. But these Indian Historians having related so many extravagant Romances of the Pigmies, as to render their whole History suspected, nay to be utterly denied, that there were ever any such Creatures as Pigmies in Nature, both by Strabo of old, and most of our Learned Men of late, I have endeavoured to assert the Truth of their being, from a Text in Aristotle; which being so positive in affirming their Existence, creates a difficulty, that can no ways be got over by such as are of the contrary Opinion. This Text I have vindicated from the false Interpretations and Glosses of several Great Men, who had their Minds so prepossessed and prejudiced with the Notion of Men Pigmies, that they often would quote it, and misapply it, tho' it contained nothing that any ways favoured their Opinion; but the contrary rather, that they were Brutes, and not Men.  
And that the Pigmies were really Brutes, I think I have plainly proved out of Herodotus and Philostratus, who reckon them amongst the wild Beasts that breed in those Countries: For tho' by Herodotus they are called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and Philostratus calls them 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, yet both make them 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or wild Beasts. And I might here add what Pausanias 
(t) Pausanias' in Atticis, p. m. 21.  relates from Euphemus Car, who by contrary Winds was driven upon some Islands, where he tells us, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, but when he comes to describe them, tells us that they had no Speech; that they had Tails on their Rumps; and were very lascivious toward the Women in the Ship. But of these more, when we come to discourse of Satyrs.  
And we may the less wonder to find that they call Brutus' Men, since 'twas common for these Historians to give the Title of Men, not only to Brutes, but they were grown so wanton in their Inventions, as to describe several Nations of Monstrous Men, that had never any Being, but in their own Imagination, as I have instanced in several. I therefore excuse Strabo for denying the Pigmies, since he could not but be convinced, they could not be such Men, as these Historians have described them. And the better to judge of the Reasons that some of the Moderns have given to prove the Being of Men Pigmies, I have laid down as Postulatas, that hereby we must not understand Dwarves, nor yet a Nation of Men, tho' somewhat of a lesser size and stature than ordinary; but we must observe those two Characteristics that Homer gives of them, that they are Cubitales, and fight Cranes.  
Having premised this, I have taken into consideration Caspar Bartholine Senior his Opusculum de Pygmaeis, and Jo. Talentonius' Dissertation about them; and upon examination do find, that neither the Humane Authorities, nor Divine that they allege, do any ways prove, as they pretend, the Being of Men Pigmies. St. Austin, who is likewise quoted on their side, is so far from favouring this Opinion, that he doubts whether any such Creatures exist, and if they do, concludes them to be Apes or Monkeys; and censures those Indian Historians for imposing such Beasts upon us, as distinct Races of Men. Julius Caesar Scaliger, and Isaac Casaubon, and Adrian Spigelius utterly deny the Being of Pigmies, and look upon them as a Figment only of the Ancients, because such little Men as they describe them to be, are no where to be met with in all the World. The Learned Bochartus, tho' he esteems the Geranomachia to be a Fable, and slights it, yet thinks that what might give the occasion to the Story of the Pigmies, might be the Nubae or Nobae, as Isaac Vossius conjectures that it was those Dwarves beyond the Fountains of the Nile, that Dapper calls the Mimos, and tells us, they kill Elephants for to make a Traffic with their Teeth. But Job Ludolphus altars the Scene, and instead of Cranes, substitutes his Condors, who do not fight the Pigmies, but fly away with them, and then devour them.  
Now all these Conjectures do no ways account for Homer's Pigmies and Cranes, they are too much forced and strained. Truth is always easy and plain. In our present Case therefore I think the Orang-Outang, or wild Man, may exactly supply the place of the Pigmies, and without any violence or injury to the Story, sufficiently account for the whole History of the Pigmies, but what is most apparently fabulous; for what has been the greatest difficulty to be solved or satisfied, was their being Men; for as Gesner remarks (as I have already quoted him) Sed veterum nullus aliter de Pygmaeis scripsit, quam Homunciones esse. And the Moderns too, being biased and misguided by this Notion, have either wholly denied them, or contented themselves in offering their Conjectures what might give the first rise to the inventing this Fable. And tho' Albertus, as I find him frequently quoted, thought that the Pigmies might be only a sort of Apes, and he is placed in the Head of those that espoused this Opinion, yet he spoils all, by his way of reasoning, and by making them speak; which was more than he needed to do.  
I cannot see therefore any thing that will so fairly solve this doubt, that will reconcile all, that will so easily and plainly make out this Story, as by making the Qrang-Outang to be the pygmy of the Ancients; for 'tis the same Name that Antiquity gave them. For Herodotus' 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, what can they be else, than Homines Sylvestres, or wild Men? as they are now called. And Homer's 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, are no more an Humane Kind, or Men, than Herodotus' 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which he makes to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, or wild Beasts: And the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 (as they are often called) were just the same. Because this sort of Apes had so great a resemblance to Men, more than other Apes or Monkeys; and they going naturally erect, and being designed by Nature to go so, (as I have shown in the Anatomy) the Ancients had a very plausible ground for giving them this denomination of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, but commonly they added an Epithet; as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, or some snch like. Now the Ancient Greek, and Indian Historians, tho' they might know these Pigmies to be only Apes like Men, and not to be real Men, yet being so extremely addicted to Mythology, or making Fables, and finding this so fit a Subject to engraft upon, and invent Stories about, they have not been wanting in furnishing us with a great many very Romantic ones on this occasion. And the Moderns being imposed upon by them, and misguided by the Name of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, as if thereby must be always understood an Humane Kind, or real Men, they have altogether mistaken the Truth of the Story, and have either wholly denied it, or rendered it as improbable by their own Conjectures.  
This difficulty therefore of their being called Men, I think, may fairly enough be accounted for by what I have said. But it may be objected that the Orang-Outang, or these wild or savage Men are not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, or Trispithami, that is, but two Foot and a quarter high, because by some Relations that have been given, it appears they have been observed to be of a higher stature, and as tall as ordinary Men. Now tho' this may be allowed as to these wild Men that are bred in other places; and probably enough likewise, there are such in some Parts of the Continent of Africa; yet 'tis sufficient to our business if there are any there, that will come within our Dimensions; for our Scene lies in Africa; where Strabo observes, that generally the Beasts are of a less size than ordinary; and this he thinks might give the rise to the Story of the Pigmies. For, saith he 
(u) Strabo Geograph. lib. 17. p. m. 565. , 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. i.e. That their Beasts are small, as their Sheep, Goats and Oxen, and their Dogs are small, but hairy and fierce: and it may be (saith he) from the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or littleness of the stature of these Animals, they have invented and imposed on us the Pigmies. And then adds, That no body fit to be believed ever saw them; because he fancied, as a great many others have done, that these Pigmies must be real Men, and not a sort of Brutes. Now since the other Brutes in this Country are generally of a less size than in other Parts, why may not this sort of Ape, the Orang-Outang, or wild Man, be so likewise. Aristotle speaking of the Pigmies, saith, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 That both they and the Horses there are but small. He does not say their Horses, for they were never mounted upon Horses, but only upon Partridges, Goats and Rams. And as the Horses, and other Beasts are naturally less in Africa than in other Parts, so likewise may the Orang-Outang be. This that I dissected, which was brought from Angola (as I have often mentioned) wanted something of the just stature of the Pigmies; but it was young, and I am therefore uncertain to what tallness it might grow, when at full Age: And neither Tulpius, nor Gassendus, nor any that I have hitherto met with, have adjusted the full stature of this Animal that is found in those Parts from whence ours was brought: But 'tis most certain, that there are sorts of Apes that are much less than the Pigmies are described to be. And, as other Brutes, so the Apekind, in different Climates, may be of different Dimensions; and because the other Brutes here are generally small, why may not they be so likewise. Or if the difference should be but little, I see no great reason in this case, why we should be overnice, or scrupulous.  
As to our Ape Pigmies or Orang-Outang fight the Cranes, this, I think, may be easily enough made out, by what I have already observed; for this wild Man I dissected was Carnivorous, and it may be Omnivorous, at least as much as Man is; for it would eat any thing that was brought to the Table. And if it was not their Hunger that drove them to it, their Wantonness, it may be, would make them apt enough to rob the Crane's Nests; and if they did so, no doubt but the Cranes would make noise enough about it, and endeavour what they could to beat them off, which a Poet might easily make a Fight: Tho' Homer only makes use of it, as a Simile, in comparing the great Shouts of the Trojans to the Noise of the Cranes, and the Silence of the Greeks to that of the Pigmies when they are going to Engage, which is natural enough, and very just, and contains nothing, but what may easily be believed; tho' upon this account he is commonly exposed, and derided, as the Inventor of this Fable; and that there was nothing of Truth in it, but that 'twas wholly a Fiction of his own.  
Those Pigmies that Paulus Jovius 
(w) (w) Pavi. Jovij de Legatione Muschovitar. lib. p.m. 489.  describes, tho' they dwell at a great distance from Africa, and he calls them Men, yet are so like Apes, that I cannot think them any thing else. I will give you his own words: Vltra Lapones (saith he) in Regione inter Corum & Aquilonem perpetuâ oppressa Caligine Pygmaeos reperiri, aliqui eximiae fidei testes rctulerunt; qui postquàm ad summum adoleverint, nostratis Pueri denum annorum Mensuram vix excedunt. Meticulosum genus hominum, & garritu Sermonem exprimens, adeo ut tam Simiae propinqui, quam staturâ ac sensibus ab justae Proceritatis homine remoti videantur. Now there is this Advantage in our Hypothesis, it will take in all the Pigmies, in any part of the World, or wherever they are to be met with, without supposing, as some have done, that 'twas the Cranes that forced them to quit their Quarters; and upon this account several Authors have described them in different places: For unless we suppose the Cranes so kind to them, as to waste them over, how came we to find them often in Islands? But this is more than can be reasonably expected from so great Enemies.  
I shall conclude by observing to you, that this having been the Common Error of the Age, in believing the Pigmies to be a sort of little Men, and it having been handed down from so great Antiquity, what might contribute farther to the confirming this Mistake, might be, the Imposture of the Navigators, who sailing to these Parts where these Apes are, they have embalmed their Bodies, and brought them home, and then made the People believe that they were the Men of those Countries from whence they came. This M. P. Venetus assures us to have been done; and 'tis not unlikely: For, saith he 
(†) M. Pauli Veneti de Regionibus Orieneal. lib. 3. cap. 15. p.m. 390. , Abundat quoque Regio ipsa (sc. Basman in Java majori) diversis Simiis magnis & parvis, hominibus simillimis, hos capiunt Venatores & totos depilant, nisi quòd in barba & in loco secreto Pilos relinquunt, & occisos speciebus Aromaticis condiunt, & postea desiccant, venduntque Negociatoribus, qui per diversas Orbis Parts Corpora illa deferentes, homines persuadent Tales Homunciones in Maris Insulis reperiri. Joh. Jonston 
(x) Jo. Jonsten. Hist. Nat. de Quadruped. p.m. 139.  relates the same thing, but without quoting the Author; and as he is very apt to do, commits a great mistake, in telling us, pro Homunculis marinis venditant.  
I shall only add, That the Servile Offices that these Creatures are observed to perform, might formerly, as it does to this very day, impose upon Mankind to believe, that they were of the same Species with themselves; but that only out of sullenness or cunning, they think they will not speak, for fear of being made Slaves. Philostratus 
(y) Philostratus in vita Apollonij Tyanaei, lib. 3. cap. 1. p. m. 110, & 111.  tells us, That the Indians make use of the Apes in gathering the Pepper; and for this Reason they do defend and preserve them from the Lions, who are very greedy of preying upon them: And altho' he calls them Apes, yet he speaks of them as Men, and as if they were the Husbandmen of the Pepper Trees, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. And he calls them the People of Apes; 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Dapper 
(z) Dapper Description de l' Africa, p. m. 249.  tells us, That the Indians take the Baris when young, and make them so tame, that they will do almost the work of a Slave; for they commonly go erect as Men do. They will beat Rice in a Mortar, carry Water in a Pitcher, etc. And Gassendus 
(a) Gassendus in vita Pierskij, lib. 5. p. m. 169.  in the Life of Pieresky, tells us, That they will play upon a Pipe or Cittern, or the like Music, they will sweep the House, turn the Spit, beat in a Mortar, and do other Offices in a Family. And Acosta, as I find him quoted by Garcilasso de la Vega 
(b) Garcilasso de la Vega Royal Commentaries of Peru, lib. 8. cap. 18. p. 1333.  tells us of a Monkey he saw at the governor's House at Cartagena, whom they sent often to the Tavern for Wine, with Money in one hand, and a Bottle in the other; and that when he came to the Tavern, he would not deliver his Money, until he had received his Wine. If the Boys met with him by the way, or made a houting or noise after him, he would set down his Bottle, and throw Stones at them; and having cleared the way, he would take up his Bottle, and hasten home. And tho' he loved Wine excessively, yet he would not dare to touch it, unless his Master gave him Licence. A great many Instances of this Nature might be given that are very surprising. And in another place tells us, That the Natives think that they can speak, but will not, for fear of being made to work. And Bontius 
(c) Jac. Bontij Hist. Nat. & Med. lib. 5. cap. 32. p. m. 85.  mentions that the Javans had the same Opinion concerning the Orang-Outang, Loqui verò eos, easque Javani aiunt, sed non velle, ne ad labores cogerentur.   

A Philological Essay Concerning the CYNOCEPHALI OF THE ANCIENTS.  
Of the Cynocephali of the Ancients.  
'tIS not that I think there are any at present so mistaken, as to believe the Cynocephali to be a Race of Men, that I write this Essay: 'tis so notoriously known that they are Monkeys, or rather Baboons, that 'tis needless to go about to prove it, 'tis what even the Ancients themselves have sufficiently confessed. That which induces me to mention them, is to show how fond the Ancients were of inventing Fables; and Ctesias, who hath told us such fine Stories of the Pigmies, whom he makes to be little Men, tho' indeed they are only a sort of Apes; when he comes to discourse of the Cynocephali, which are a sort of Baboons, and far less like Men than the Pigmies are, to persuade us that these likewise are a Race of Men; he is obliged to exercise his Inventive Faculty with more force, to use much bolder strokes, and by roundly asserting so many incredible Things, to amuse our Imaginations, he hopes at least to give the Reader Entertainment, tho' he misses his Design of gaining our belief.  
I will give you Ctesias' own words, that you may see I do not abuse him, as he hath done Mankind, in most of the Natural History that he hath left us; for as 
(a) Photij Bibliothec. Cod. 72. de Indicis, p. m. 149, etc.  Photius informs us, Ctesias tells us  
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  
Degere iisdem hisce in montibus homines memorat canino capite, qui ferarum pellibus vestiantur. Sermone hos nullo uti, canum tantùm more latratum edere, atque ita mutuò sese intelligere. Dentes illis esse quam canibus majores, & caninos similiter ungues, sed longiores, ac rotundiores. Montes incolere ad Indum fluvium usque, & colore esse nigro, insignésque justitiae cultores, ceterorum Indorum more, inter quos versentur. Intelligere quoque quae ab Indis dicantur, licet ipsi loqui minimè possint, ut propterea latratu, manibus, atque digitis signa dent, quemadmodum ferè surdi ac muti solent. Vocari hos ab Indis Calystrios, quod Graeci dicerent 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, id est, Canicipites, [carnibus eosdem vesci crudis] totiúsque gentis capita numerari ad centum & viginti millia.  
And a little afterwards he adds,  
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  
Narrat insuper hos Cynocephalos in montibus habitantes nullum exercere opificium; sed de venatione vivere, ferásque quas occiderint ad solem torrere. Magnam nihilominus pecoris copiam alere, caprarúmque & ovium: quarum quidem ovium lac atque oxygala pro potu illis sit. Vesci tamen etiam Sipachorae fructu; è qua, uti dictum est, arbore succinum emanat. dulcem enim illum esse. Hunc item illos fructum arefactum in corbes constipare, ad eum modum quo uvas passas Graeci. Eosdem illos Cynocephalos ratem quoque extemporariam construere, qua impositum hujus fructus onus, ut & purpurae (sed purgato prius ejus flore) itémque electri, ad ducenta & sexagintatalenta quotannis avehunt; additis talentis totidem illius Pigmenti, quo infectores puniceum colorem inducunt. Electri praeterea mille talenta quotannis ad Indorum regem advehere. Immò & alia plura devehere ad Indos venalia, pro quibus vicissim panes, farinam, & xylinas vestes accipiant. Habere quoque enses venales, quibus ipsi ad venatum utuntur, cum arcubus & jaculis. Peritissimos enim esse jaculandi atque sagittandi: & praeterea ctiam, quod montes habitent altos atque inaccessos, bello insuperabiles. Regem ipsis pro munere quinto quoque anno praebere trecenta arcuum, totidémque jaculorum millia; jam peltarum centum viginti, & gladiorum quinquaginta millia. Nullas item apud hos esse domos, sed in antris degere. In venatione jaculis potissimum feras, vel sagittis petere; easdemque persequendo, quòd cursus velocitate praestent, etiam assequi. Horum uxores semel duntaxat per mensem, cum menstrua patiuntur, lavare; aliâs nunquam. Neque viros unquam omnino lavare, sed manus tantummodò abluere. Oleo tamen ex lacte confecto ter saltem mensibus singulis ungi, & pellibus deinde abstergi. Veste ad haec uti, non villosa, sed è glabris maceratisque pellibus quam tenuissimis, ipsos aequè atque uxores. Exceptis fortè ditissimis inter eos, & iis quidem paucis, qui lineos gestent amictus. Nec item lectorum novisse usum eos, qui extemporaneos sibi toros exstruant. Hunc apud eos ditissimum haberi, qui plurimum habeat pecoris, ac reliquas opes his propemodum esse similes. Caudam insuper habere omnes, tam viros quam mulieres, supra clunes, caninae, similem, nisi quòd major sit, & pilis densior. Quadrupedes item hos, canum more, cum mulieribus congredi aliúmque congrediendi modum omnem pro turpi habere. Justissimos eosdem esse, vitaeque reliquos inter homines longissimae. Vivere namque ad centesimum usque & septuagesimum, nonnullosque ad ducentissimum quoque annum.  
i e. In these Mountains (saith Ctesias) live certain Men, who have Heads like Dogs, are clothed with Skins of wild Beasts, speak no Language, but bark like Dogs, and thereby understand one another. They have Teeth larger than Dogs; and Nails like Dogs, but longer and rounder. They dwell up in the Mountains, as far as the River Indus; they are black and very just, as are the other Indians with whom they are mixed; and they understand what is said to them, tho' they cannot speak themselves. But by their Barking, and their Hands and Fingers, they signify their Minds, as Deaf and Dumb Men do. They are called by the Indians, Calystrij, which in Greek is Cynocephali. The whole Nation is an hundred and twenty Thousand in number.  
These Cynocephali that inhabit the Mountains, do not work, but live upon Hunting; and when they kill any wild Beast, they roast it in the Sun. They breed a great many Sheep, Goats and Asses; and drink the Milk and Buttermilk of the Sheep. They eat likewise the Fruit of the Sipachora Tree, from whence comes Ambar, the Fruit whereof is sweet, which having dried, they put up in Baskets, as the Greeks do Raisins. These Cynocephali having made a Boat, they load it with this Fruit, and with Purpura, the Flower being first picked, and with Ambar, to the quantity of Two hundred and sixty Talents, which they every Year ship off, and as much too of the Drug, with which the Dyers die the Scarlet; and they carry every Year a Thousand Talents of Ambar to the King of India, and they take with them other Commodities, which they sell to the Indians; for which they receive Bread, and Meal, and Cotton Garments. And the Indians sell them likewise Swords, which they use in taking the wild Beasts; and Bows and Darts, for they are very skilful Archers and Darters. They are invincible, because they inhabit very high, and inaccessible Mountains. Every fifth year, the King bestows upon them Three hundred thousand Bows, and as many Darts: Also an Hundred and twenty thousand Shields, and Fifty thousand Swords. They have no Houses, but live in Caves. In hunting the wild Beasts, they use their Bows and Darts, and pursuing them, they take them; for they run very swift. The Women bathe only once a Month, when they have their Catamenia, otherwise not. The Men don't bathe, but only wash their hands; but they anoint themselves three times in a Month with Oil made of Milk, and rub themselves with Hides. The clothes both of the Men and Women are not hairy, but Skins macerated smooth, and made very thin. The richest of them wear Linen, but those are but few. They have no Beds, but lie upon Straw or Leaves. He is esteemed the richest amongst them, who hath most Sheep, or such like Substance, They have all, both Men and Women, Tails on their Rumps, like Dogs, but larger and more hairy; and, like Dogs too, they lie with their Women on all four, and they think itunbecoming to do otherwise. They are just, and the longest lived of any Men, for they live an Hundred and seventy, and some of them Two hundred years.  
Had not Ctesias made such a Solemn Asseveration of the Truth of all that he had wrote, that Apology that Strabo 
(b) Strabo Geograph. lib. 1. p.m. 29.  makes for the Poets, might excuse him, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 (saith Strabo) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i.e. Statim enim apparet eos fabulas admiscere, non ob verorum ignorationem, sed delectationis causa, monstra & alia quae esse non possunt, fingentes. For our Historian had as good a Talon at Fiction as any of the Poets. And tho' AEschylus, as the same Strabo there tells us, first invented the Story of the Cynocephali, or Canicipites, as likewise the Pectoroculati and the Vnoculi, as Hesiod and Homer did that of the Pigmies; yet I can't but think he hath as far outdone the Original in what he relates of the Cynocephali, as he did in the Account he gives of the Pigmies.  
These Cynocephali by 
(c) AElian. Hist. de Animal. lib. 10. cap. 25. p.m. 601.  AElian are called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and he gives this Relation of them, as I find him translated by Conrade. Gesner, who is more faithful in rendering him than Pet. Gillius, Vltra Oasin AEgypti, solitudo maxima ad septem dierum iter extenditur. Eam excipit Regio quam Cynoprosopi Homines incolunt, in via AEthiopiam versus. Vivunt illi Caprarum & Bubalidum venatu. Aspectus iis niger, Caput & Dentes Canis. Quod Animal, quum referant, non absurda eorum (quamquam Hominum) hoc in loco existimanda est mentio. Name & Sermonis usu carent, & acuto quodam stridore sonant. Barbam infra supraque os gerunt, Draconum quadam similitudine. Manus eorum validis & acutissimis unguibus armantur. Corpus omne hirsutum est, hoc etiam instar Canum. Sunt autem pernicissimi, & aquas Regionis norunt; atque eam ob causam, difficiles captu.  
Now tho AElian calls them here Men, yet where he describes them before, even out of Ctesias, he plainly tells us they are not Men, but only Brutes, because they cannot speak, but only bark. I will give you 
(d) AElian. H●●t. de Animal. lib. 4. cap. 46. p.m. 239.  Gesner's Translation of this Passage: In eodem Indiae tractu, ubi Canthari 
(†) These Canthari are that sort of Scaribaeus we call a Lady-Cow, and I have formerly given a Figure of, in Philosoph. Transact. N. 175. p. 1202. from the Worm or Chry●alis of which, come the Cochineel, for dying Scarlet, of which there is a good account here in AElian out of Ctesias.  jam dicti, Cynocephali etiam reperiuntur: quibus à fancy & Corporis specie nomen inditum, caetera fere humana habent: & vestiti pellibus ferarum ingrediuntur. Justi sunt, Hominum nemini molesti aut injurij, non Sermone sed ululatu sonant. Indorum tamen linguam intelligunt. Venatione Animalium ferorum vivunt, quae ut sunt celerrimi, facile consecuti interimunt, & frustatim divisa ad solem assunt. Capras etiam & oves alunt, ut ex lacte potu fruantur. Horum inter Animantes rationis expertes non temerè mentionem feci, articulato enim, discretoque & humano Sermone non utuntur●.  
But 'twas for want of Education, it may be, and by their living wild in the Woods, they lost their Learning and their Speech; for the Egyptians in the time of the Ptolemy's took more care of them; and as the same AElian relates, they taught them Letters, and to Dance, and to play upon Music: Nor were they ungrateful to their Masters; for they begged a great deal of Money, which they carefully put up into a Bag, to reward them for the pains they had taken with them. For thus, saith 
(e) AElian. Hist. de Anim. lib. 6. cap. 10. p. 331.  AElian, as Gesner translates him; Animalia Disciplinae idonea haec esse percepi. Regnantibus Ptolomeis Cynocephalos AEgyptij literas, & saltare, & pulsare Citharam docebant. Tum verò unusquispiam Cynocephalorum mercedem, Domini nomine sic scitè tanquam peritus aliquis Mendicus exigebat. Et id quod dabatur in Marsupium, quod ferebat, appensum, congerebat.  
I could not but take the more notice of this passage in AElian, because the Cynocephali are always represented to be of a fierce and untractable Nature; which seems their particular Character: For saith Aristotle, as I have quoted him already 
(f) Vid. pag. 3. & 7. of the Anatomy. , 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. e. The Cynocephali are of the same shape with Monkeys, but they are bigger and stronger, and they have a Face more like a Dog's, and are of a fiercer Nature, and have Teeth more like a Dog's, and stronger. And so 
(g) Pt●ij Hist. Nat. lib. 8. cap. 54. p. 243.  Pliny, Efferacior Cynocephalis Natura sicut Satyris: And 
(h) Solini Polyhistor. cap. 27. p. m. 39  Solinus, Cynocephali & ipsi sunt è numero simiarum, in AEthiopiae parte frequentissimi: violenti ad saltum, feri morsu, nunquam ita mansueti, ut non sint magis rabidi. And 
(i) Diodori Siculi Biblioth. Histor. lib. 3. p.m. 168.  Diodorus Siculus describes them after the same manner: 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. e. Qui Cynocephali (à Canino Capite) dicuntur, Corporis aspectum Hominum deformium instar habent, quorum vocem mussitatione tantùm exprimunt. Apprimè ferox est hoc Animal, nec ullo cicurationem pacto admittit, & vultum à superciliis austerioribus praefert. Singular quiddam faemellis accidit; quod vulvam perpetuò extra Corpus projectam habent. And Agatharcides in 
(k) Photij Biblioth. Cap. 38. Cod. 250. p.m. 1364.  Photius gives just the same description of them: 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 (saith he) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. e. In Cynocephalo Hominis Corpus, specie turpis, adumbratur. Canina ei facies, vocem stridori Muris non dissimilem exprimit. Sed immodicè ferum est Animal, nec ullo modo cicuratur: vultumque à superciliis & oculis austerum prodit. Ita Mas comparatus est. Foemineo generi hoc est proprium, ut uterum extra Corpus gestet, eoque habitu totam exigat vilam.  
Salmasius 
(l) Salmasij Exercitat. Plinian. Cap. 27. p. 267.  remarks that Agatharcides borrowed this Passage, as he hath some others likewise, from Diodorus Siculus. But that these Relations of Ctesias that are so extravagant and wild, should be copied from him, by so many and noted Authors too, seems somewhat strange. Yet we find AElian, Pliny, Solinus, and a great many others have done it; tho' they have added by it little Credit to their Histories, and no doubt much lessened their own Reputation by transcribing the Errors of their Predecessors. In the History therefore of Nature we must not depend upon the Authority of the Number of those that only transcribe the same thing, without duly examining the Matter themselves: For the Authority here wholly depends on the veracity of the first Relator: And it what Ctesias saith is false, tho' never so many say the same thing from him, they must all be in the wrong. Especially in transcribing the Ancients, and believing their Reports, we ought to be very cautious, since 'twas a common Practice amongst them to disguise and conceal the Truths they would deliver, in Enigmatical and Mythological Representations. Many times there is something of Truth contained in their Relations, but 'tis under such Vails, that you will not discover it, till you have taken them off. And tho' there are no such Men, as Ctesias' Cynocephali, and Pigmies; yet there are Apes, and Monkeys, and Baboons, that afforded him a ground for his Invention.  
Now what sort of Monkey these Cynocephali were, I shall not at present inquire; that they are of the Monkey-kind is evident, because they have Tails: and Aristotle tells us, that they are bigger and stronger, and therefore I make them of the Baboon-kind. But not having seen any of them myself, I shall refer my Reader to the Authors who have wrote about them. 'Tis sufficient to my present purpose that they are a sort of Monkeys, and not Men, as formerly represented.   

A Philological Essay Concerning the SATYRS OF THE ANCIENTS.  
Of the SATYRS of the Ancients.  
TULPIUS and Bontius indeed think the Orang-Outang to be the satire of the Ancients; but if we inquire into their History, and examine what Opinion the Ancients had concerning them, we shall find it no less involved in Fables, than that of the Pigmies; and upon this account several of our Learned Men of late, have wholly denied them, and look upon all the Stories concerning them to be only a Fiction of the Poets and Painters, and that there were never any such Being's in Nature. The Learned 
(a) Casaubon de Poesi Satyricâ, lib. 1. cap. 2.  Casaubon is clearly of this Mind, Quicquid de Satyris legimus (saith he) ex Poetarum Pictorumque fingendi Licentia Originem ducere. Nihil hujus reverà in Rerum Naturâ existere. So 
(b) I● Vossij Commented Pompon. Melam. lib. 1. c. 8. p.m. 46.  Isaac Vossius speaking of the AEgipanes tells us, Sanè neque in forma hujus monstri conveniunt, si tamen monstris accensenda sunt ea, quae sunt mera Graeculorum Commenta. And the Learned 
(c) Bocharti Hierozoic. seu de Animal. Sacrae Scripturae. part. post. lib. 6. cap. 7. p. 829.  Bochartus saith, Absit interim ut ex his locis Quisquam colligat, ullos aut jam exstare, vel unquam extitisse in Rerum Natura Satyros. However, I do not doubt but to make it plainly appear, that there were such Animals in Africa which the Ancients called Satyrs. And tho' they sometimes called them Men, and for the most part worshipped them as Gods, yet I shall show, that they were only a sort of Monkeys, and likewise Evince, that the Orang-Outang was not this sort of Monkey or satire of the Ancients.  
Having proposed these as the Heads of my ensuing Discourse, it will not be expected of me to give an Account of all that has been said on this Argument. I shall rather apply myself to make out what I have here asserted. And tho' on this occasion, it may be, the Poets have Enigmatically represented some Nobler Secrets of Philosophy, by what they relate under the Fables they have made of these Satyrs, the Fauni, the Nymphae, Pan, AEgipan, Sylvanus, Silenus, or any other Name they have given of this sort of Animal; yet I think myself no farther concerned at present, than to show what might give the first rise to and occasion of these Inventions: or rather to prove that the Satyrs were neither Men, nor Demigods, nor Daemons; but Monkeys or Baboons, that in Africa were worshipped as the Gods of the Country; and being so, might give the Poets the Subject of the Stories which they have forged about them.  
The Satyrs therefore are generally represented like Men in the upper Parts, but with Horns on their Heads; and in their lower Parts or Legs like Goats: hence they are called Capripedes, or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, as Herodotus expresses it. And Pliny (as I shall show) where he describes them as Brutes; and saith, they are sometimes Quadrupeds, sometimes Bipeds, yet tells us, they are Humanâ Effigy. Diodorus Siculus 
(d) Diodorus Siculus Bibliothec. Hist. lib. 1. p.m. 16.  informs us, that when Osiris went into AEthiopia, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc. i.e. Dum in AEthiopia versatur (Osiris) Gens Satyrorum ei adducitur, quas pilos in lumbis (Osphye) habere ferunt. Risûs enim amator erat Osiris & Musicae Choreisque gaudebat, etc. Satyri igitur quia ad tripudia, & decantationem Carminum, omnemque hilaritatem & lusum apti erant, in partem Militiae venerunt. He makes them likewise the Companions of Bacchus, and for the same reason 
(e) Diodorus Siculus ibid. lib. 4. p.m. 213. , 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i.e. Ita Satyri ludicris & ad risum compositis gestibus & actionibus, vitam Dionyso beatam, Gratiisque delibutam, reddunt. And they are always represented as Jocose and Sportful, but Scurrilous and Lascivious; and wonderful Things they relate of their Revellings by Night, their Dancing, Music, and their wanton Frolicks. For thus Pliny 
f Plinij Hist. Nat. lib. 5. cap. 1. p.m. 523.  describing the Parts about the Mountain Atlas in Africa, informs us, Incolarum neminem interdiu cerni: silere omnia, non alio quam solitudinum horrore: subire tacitam Religionem animos propriùs accedentium, praeterque horrorem elati (sc. Montis) super nubila, atque in viciniam Lunaris circuli. Eundem noctibus micare crebris ignibus, AEgipanum, Saturorumque lascivia impleri, Tibiarum ac Fistulae Cantu, & Cymbalorum Sonitu strepere. And then adds, Haec celebrati Authores prodidere. And so 
(g) Pomp. Mela de situ Orbis, lib. 3. cap. 9 p.m. 63.  Pomponius Mela, Vltra hunc sinum Mons altus (ut Graeci vocant) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, perpetuis ignibus flagrat: ultra montem viret Collis longo tractu, longis littoribus obductus, unde visuntur patentes magis Campi, quâm ut prospici possint, Panum, Satyrorumque. Hinc opinio ea fidem cepit, quòd cum in his nihil culti sit, nullae habitantium Sedes, nulla Vestigia, solitudo in diem Vasta, & silentium Vastius, nocte crebri ignes micant, & veluti Castra late jacentia ostenduntur, Crepant Cymbala & Tympana, audiunturque Tibiae Sonantes majus humanis. Where we may observe that what Pliny calls AEgipanes, Mela calls here Panes. And the Satyrs being commonly called Fauni, I can't but think, that the idle Stories we have about the Fairies, must come from hence: For they likewise have their Revellings, Dancing, and Music by Night. And as even to this day, to fright Children, they tell them Stories of Fairies and Hobgoblins, so the Ancients did use to call any great sudden Fear, as we do now, a Panic Fear, from this Pan. For as 
(h) Pausanias' in Phocicis.  Pausanias tells us, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. e. Eâ nocte Panicus illos incessit terror. Terrores enim nulla ex causa Ortos ab eo (sc. Pane) immitti aiunt. And so 
(i) Euripides in Rhaeso.  Euripides: 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  
Saturnij (Senis) Panis tremendo flagello (Ictus) trepidas.  And so 
(k) Dionysij Halicarnass. lib. 5. cap. 3.  Dionysius Halicarnasseus speaking of the Faunus, says, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. e. Huic enim Romani Panicos terrores adscribunt, & quaecunque alia Spectra, quae varias induentia formas in Hominum conspectum veniunt, & Metum ipsis incutiunt, And 
(l) Ovid in Phaedra.  Ovid: 
— Faunique bicornes  
Numine contactas attonuere suo.  How jolly therefore soever and merry the Satyrs may be by night amongst themselves, with their Dancing and Music: yet they have been frightful to Men formerly, as the Stories of the Fairies and Hobgoblins are (as I said before) to Children now; and indeed, the telling Children Stories of this kind, is a very mischievous Custom; for they are thereby impressed with such Fears, as perhaps they cannot conquer all their Life time. But the Account that 
(m) Phurnutus de Natura Deorum Cap. de Pane, p. m. 70.  Phurnutus gives of these Panic Fears, I think is natural; for he tells us, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. e. Nihil prohibet quin etiam Panicos tumultus dicamus, qui subito & sine ratione certa exoriuntur: sic enim interdum armenta & greges terrentur, dum sonus quidam subitus è Sylva, aut ex Antris aut ex Terrae voraginibus affertur.  
Now Lucretius thinks that all this Music of Pipes, Flutes, Cymbals and Drums, that is said to be made by the Jollity and Revellings of the Satyrs, Fauni, Panes, etc. in this dreadful Mountain by Night, is mere Romance and Fiction; and that 'tis nothing but the Echoing of the whistling boisterous Winds amongst those hideous Rocks: For speaking of Echoes, he tells us 
(n) T. Lucretij de Rerum Naturâ, lib. 4. verf. 581. , 
Sex etiam, aut septem loca vidi reddere voces  
Vnam cum jaceres: ita colles collibus ipsis  
Verba repulsantes iterabant dict a refer.  
Haec loca Capripedes Satyros, Nymphasque tenere  
Finitimi fingunt, & Faunos esse loquuntur;  
Quorum noctivago strepitu, Ludoque jocanti  
Adfirmant volgo taciturna silentia rumpi,  
Chordarumque Sonos fieri, dulceisque querelas,  
Tibia quas fundit digitis pulsata canentum:  
Et genus Agricolûm late sentiscere, cum Pan  
Pinea semiferi Capitis velamina quassans,  
Vnco saepe labro calamos percurrit hianteis,  
Fistula Silvestrem ne cesset fundere Musam.  
Caetera de genere hoc monstra, ac Portenta loquuntur,  
Ne lo●a deserta ab Divis quoque forte putentur  
Sola tenere: ideo jactant miracula dictis  
Aut aliqua ratione alia ducuntur, ut omne  
Humanum Genus est avidum nimis auricularum.  Which the Ingenious Mr. Creech hath thus rendered: 
— And I myself have known  
Some Rocks and Hills return six words for one:  
The dancing words from Hill to Hill rebound,  
They all receive, and all restore the sound.  
The Vulgar, and the Neighbours think, and tell,  
That there the Nymphs, and Fauns, and Satyrs dwell;  
And that their wanton sport, their loud delight  
Breaks through the quiet silence of the Night:  
Their Music's softest Airs fill all the Plains,  
And mighty Pan delights the listening Swains;  
The Goat-faced Pan, whilst Flocks securely feed,  
With long-hung lip he blows his Oaten Reed;  
The horned, the half-beast God, when brisk and gay  
With Pine-leaves crowned, provokes the Swains to play,  
Ten thousand such Romants the Vulgar tell,  
Perhaps least Men should think the Gods will dwell  
In Towns alone, and scorn their Plains and Cell  
Or somewhat; for Man credulous and vain  
Delights to hear strange things, delights to feign.   
Lucretius here attributes the Invention of these Fables to the superstitious Notions Men had of Deities, and the Itching Ears Mankind generally hath for hearing Novelties and Wonders; and no donbt, the satisfying this Humour put the Ancients upon inventing most of these Stories. But we may take notice that Lucretius places together the Satyrs, the Nymphs, the Fauni and Pan; and generally I observe, where mention is made of them, several are joined together: As 
(o) Ovid. Metamorph. lib. 6. vers. 392.  Ovid, 
Illum Ruricolae, Sylvarum Numina, Fauni  
Et Satyri fratres, & tunc quoque clarus Olympus  
Et Nymphae flerunt.  The Fauni therefore and Satyrs I find are near akin. And 
(p) Ovid. Metamorph. lib. 14. vers. 637.  Ovid in another place saith, 
Quid non & Satyri Saltatibus apta juventus  
Fecere, & Pinu praecincti Cornua Panes.  
Silvanusque suis semper juvenilior annis.  And elsewhere he tells us 
(q) Ovid. ●. 1. Fastorum. , Panes & in Venerem Satyrorum prona juventus. The Satyrs therefore and Fauni seem to be young ones, and the elder, the Panes and Silvani, according to that of 
(r) Virgil. Georg. 1. 2. vers. 494.  Virgil, 
— Deos qui novit agrestes  
Panaque, Silvanumque Senem Nymphasque Sorores.  And 
(s) Plutarch. in Parallelis.  Plutarch tells us that what the Greeks called AEgipan, the Romans called Silvanus. And 
(t) Pausan. in Attic. p.m. 21.  Pausanias expressly tells us, that when the Satyrs grow old, they are called Sileni: 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. And by Virgil's Expression Nymphasque Sorores, 'tis very evident, that the Nymphs likewise were of this Family, and nearly related. Ovid 
(u) Ovid. Metamorph. lib. 1. vers. 193.  joins them together. 
Sunt mihi Semidei, sunt Rustica Numina Nymphae,  
Faunique, Satyrique, & monticulae Silvani.   
Now what difference there is amongst all these, unless as to their Age and Sex, I will not undertake at present to determine. The Poets and the Painters of old, if we nicely inquire into them, have been pleased, as their fancy governed them, to make, or not make a distinction between them. Those that have a mind to satisfy their Curiosity farther in this Matter, may consult Salmasius, Bochart, Gerard, and Isaac Vossius, and several others, who have largely wrote about them. I am apt to think that Pan, AEgipan, Silvanus and Silenus, were all the same; as were the Satyri and the Fauni; only these were younger than the former; and the Nymphs were the Females of the Kind. But 'tis sufficient to● my business, if I make it appear, notwithstanding all this, that the Satyrs were not Men, nor Demigods, nor Daemons, but only Brutes of the Monkey-kind; which is plain enough even from the Ancients, who have invented so many Fables about them.  
For 
(w) Herodot. in Melpomene, p.m. 229.  Herodotus tells us, and he is apt enough oftentimes to be over-credulous, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for they are neither Men, nor have they such Feet. Satyri de hominibus nihil aliud praeferunt quam figuram, saith 
(x) Solinus Poly●●st. cap. 34.  Solinus. Satyrus praeter Effigiem nihil humani, saith 
(y) P●mp. Mela de situ Orbis, lib. 1. cap. 8. p. 11.  Mela. Pliny gives us a larger description of them; Sunt & Satyri (faith 
(z) Plinij Hist. Nat. lib. 7. cap. 2.  he) subsolanis Indorum montibus (Catharcludorum dicitur Regio) perniciosissimum Animal: cum Quadrupedes tum rect● incedentes, humanâ effigy, propter velocitatem, nisi Senes aut aegri, non capiuntur. Choromandarum Geniem vocat Tauron, Silvestrem, sine voce, stridoris horrendi, hirtis Corporibus, oculis glaucis, dentibus caninis. You may here perceive they have something of the shape of Men, but can't speak, they are hairy, they go sometimes upon all four, sometimes erect, they have Dogs Teeth, they are wild mischievous Animals. But AElian is a little more express: Finitimos Indiae montes (saith 
(a) AE●●●n. Hist. Animal. lib. 16. cap. 21.  he) transmittenti, ad intimum latus densissimas convalles videri aiunt, & Corudam locum nominari: ubi Bestiae Satyrorum similitudinem formamque gerentes, & toto Corpore hirsutae, versantur: atque Equina Cauda praeditae dicuntur. Eae quum non à venatorilus agitantur, in opacis & spissis Sylvis solent ex frondibus (& fructibus) vivere. Quùm autem Venantium strepitum sentiunt, & Canum latratus exaudiunt, in Montium vertices incredibili celeritate excurrunt: nam per montes iter consicere assuetae sunt. Contra eos qui se insequuntur pugnant, de summis montibus saxa devolventes, quorum impetu saepe multi deprehensi pereunt. Itaque difficillimè capiuntur: Et ex iis nonnullae, sed aegerrimè tandem, aut aegrotantes nimirum, aut gravidae c●mprehenduntur. Illae quidem propter morbum; hae verò ob gravitatem. Captae autem ad Prasios deferuntur. AElian here tells us that they have Tails like Horses, therefore they must be of the Monkey or Baboon kind. And Pausanias, who made it his Business to inquire more particularly about them, informs us they have such Tails, but Can't speak, but are very Lascivious and Lustful, as they are observed to be to this day. I will give you Pausanias' words; 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 (saith 
(b) Pausanias' in Atticis, p.m. 21.  he) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Which 
(c) Gesner. de Animal. p. 855.  Conrade. Gesner. I find hath thus translated; Caeterum de Satyris, quinam sint, cum plura quam alij scire laborem, cum multis ea de re sum collocutus: Dixit autem Euphemus Car, se quùm in Italiam navigaret cursu esse excussum vi ventorum, & ad mare extimum, quod navigari non item soleat portatum. Insulas autem ibi multas esse ac desertas, & viris agrestibus incoli. Ad alias verò aiebat nautas deflectere recusasse, quòd antea quoque cò appulsi, Incolarum Inhumanitatem essent experti. Tempestatis denique violentia cò pervenisse. Insulas eas à Nautis vocari Satyrias. Incolas inesse rubicundos, & caudas imo dorso habere, Equinis non multò minores. Hos, ubi senserant, ad navigium accurrisse, nullamque vocem edidisse, sed mulieribus Navi unà advectis manus injecisse. Nautas verò timore correptos, Barbaram Mulierem in Insulam tandem Projecisse. Eam Satyros, non solum qua parte consuetudo permittat, verùm etiam toto corpore libidinosè violâsse, referebat.  
It appears therefore plainly that the Satyrs have Tails. But that there might not the least Scruple remain what sort of Animals these Satyrs were, I shall produce a Passage out of 
(d) Philostorgij Hist. Ecclesiastic. lib. 3. cap. 11. p. 41.  Philostorgius which is very express, and comes fully up to our Business: For he tells us, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 (sc. Satyrus) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. i.e. That a satire is a sort of Ape with a red face, swift of motion, and having a Tail. Where you may observe that Philostorgius and Pausanias both agree, that they have a red Face, which may be some mark, by which to know them again. And 
(e) Galen. Administr. Anat. lib. 4. cap. 3. p.m. 94.  Galen hath given us another, viz. that their Rostrum or Chin is longer than an Apes, but not so long as that of the Cynocephalus, as appears in that Passage I have already quoted 
(f) Vid. Anat. of the Orang-Outang, pag. 94. , viz. That a Man in proportion to his Body hath the shortest Chin of any Animal; next to a Man, an Ape; then the Lynx and Satyrs; and after these the Cynocephali. Now none of these Marks agree to the Orang-Outang; for it had no Tail, it had not a red Face, and his Chin was shorter than any other sort of Apes. So that Bontius was mistaken in calling it a satire. And Tulpius was too hasty in laying down this Conclusion, In summâ (saith 
(g) Nic. Tulpij Observe. Med. lib. 4. cap. 56. p.m. 274.  he) vel Nullus est in Rerum Naturâ Satyrus: aut si quis est, erit proculdubio illud Animal, quoth in Tabellâ hic à nobis depictum. Had Tulpius a mind to have made his Orang-Outang a satire, he should not have compared him to a Courtier, nor instanced in such Niceties as he observes, of his drinking, and going to bed: For, Efferatior Cynocephalis Natura, sicut Satyris, saith 
(h) Pliny Nat. Hist. lib. 8. cap. 54. p. 243.  Pliny. And in another Place he tells us, Satyris praeter figuram nihil moris humani 
(i) Plinj ibid. lib. 5. cap. 8. p.m. 549. . But the Orang-Outang had very tender Passions, and was very gentle and loving. Another very remarkable difference that I find between the Satyrs and the Orang-Outang, is, that the Satyrs have Pouches in their Chaps as Monkeys have; but the Orang-Outang, as I have shown in the Anatomy, had none. Conduit (saith 
(k) Plinij Nat. Hist. lib. 10. cap. 72. p.m. 466.  Pliny) in Thesauros Maxillarum Cibum Sphingiorum & Satyrorum genus: mox inde sensim ad mandendum, manibus expromit: & quod formicis in annum solenne est, his in dies vel horas. The Orang-Outang therefore cannot be the Satyrs of the Ancients, as Tulpius, and Bontius, and Dapperimagined.  
By what has been said, I think it fully appears that there were such Animals as the Ancients called Satyrs; and that they were a sort of Monkeys or Apes with Tails: And this Account that I have given of them, will very well make out those Texts in Isaih; as Chapter 13. verse 21. But wild Beasts of the Desert shall lie there, and their Hauses shall be full of doleful Creatures, and Owls shall dwell there, and Satyrs shall dance there. And Chapter 34. vers. 14. The wild Beasts of the Desert shall also meet with the wild Beasts of the Island; and the satire shall cry to his Fellow; the Schrich-Owl also shall rest there, and find for herself a place of rest. For since the Text calls them wild Beasts, I see no reason why we should fancy the Satyrs here to be Daemons, as the Learned Bochartus and others seem to do. I agree with Bochart, that what is told us in the Life of St. Paul the Hermit by St. Jerome, and in that of St. Anthony by St. Anastasius of a satire meeting St. Anthony in the Desert, and discoursing with him, may be fabulous or a Delusion. Non assentior (saith 
(l) Bochart. Hierozoic. part. poster. lib. 6. cap. 7. p. 829.  Bochartus) narrationi Magni Scriptoris, in qua Satyrus introducitur Antonium in Eremo rogans, ut prose communem Deum deprecetur, tanquam Salutis in Christo particeps futurus. Non alios servat Christus, quam quos assumpsit. At non assumpsit Angelos, multò minùs Daemones aut Satyros qui nusquam sunt, sed semen Abrahae. And tho' St. Jerome, to confirm this Relation, adds, That in Constantine's time one of these Monsters was seen alive at Alexandria in Egypt, and after its Death, it's Carcase was embalmed and sent to Antioch for the Emperor to see it; Yet I shall plainly prove that this satire was nothing else but that sort of Monkey I am now discoursing about.  
This Story I find often mentioned; but 
(m) Philostorg. Hist. Ecclesiastic. lib. 3. cap. 11.  Philostorgius gives us the most particular Account of it, and therefore I shall insert his own words; 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. i.e. This Ape-form is mixed with other Species of Animls; and this is plain, serveral being sent over to us; as that which is called Pan, which in its Head had a Goat's face and Goat's horns, from its Loins downwards Goat's Legs; but in its Belly, Breasts, and Hands was a pure Ape. Such an one the King of India sent to Constantius. This Animal lived for some time, and was carried about enclosed in a Cage, being very wild. When it died, those that looked after it, having embalmed it to make a show of this unusual sight, sent it to Constantinople. Now I am apt to believe the ancient Greeks had seen this Animal, and being surprised at the strangeness of the sight, fancied it to be a God; it being usual for them to make a God of any thing that they admired or wondered at: as they did the satire.  
'Tis evident therefore by this Relation, that the satire is of the Ape or Monkey-kind: For 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 here is generical, and includes both. But there being several Species of them, they received a denomination according to the resemblance they had to other Animals; as in Philostorgius are mentioned before, the Leontopithecus, the Arctopithecus, the Cynocephalus and Aegopithecus, which last seems to be our satire, from the resemblace it hath in its Head and Legs to a Goat. That their Legs and Face are like a Goat's, is easy enough to be believed: but the Horns that they clap upon his Head, seem to me as an addition of the Poets, or the Painters, or both. But what gave a foundation to this Invention, possibly may be the largeness of their Ears standing off from their Head, and which are very remarkable. And this Phurnutus 
(n) Phurnutus de Nat. De●rum. cap. de Pane. P.m. 71.  gives as the reason of it. Horace 
(o) Horace Odarum, Lib. 2. Ode 19  takes notice of their Ears, but ill describes them in making them sharp pointed, whereas they are round. 
— & aures  
Capripedum Satyrorum acutas.   
But by this Account it likewise appears, that Pan was a Name of this sort of Monkey; and Philostorgius' Remark at the Conclusion of this Passage, I think is very just: for 'tis certain that this Animal was Worshipped in India as a Deity, as a Dog was by the Egyptians; and 'twas Death for any Body to kill one of them: For thus saith 
(p) Diodor. Sicul. Biblioth. Hist. l. 20. p.m. 793.  Diodorus Siculus, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. i.e. Easdem enim domus Simiae quas Homines frequentant; & pro Diis habentur ap●●illos, ut apud AEgyptios Canes; paratos etiam in Cellis penariis cibos, quando libet, ●emine prohibente, hae bestiae sumunt, nominaque ut plurimùm à Simiis, ut apud nos à Diis, Parents Liberis suis imponunt. Qui Animal hoc interfe●erint, in eos, ut nefariae Impietatis reos, supplicio capitis animadvertitur. Ideo apud nonnullos Proverbij vicem obtinuit, quod in magnifice se efferentes dicitur; Simiae Cruorem bibisti. And in another place 
(q) Diodor. Sicul. Ibid. l. 1. p.m. 16.  Diodorus tells us, that Pan was in the greatest Veneration amongst the Egyptians, and his Statue was in every Temple. And 
(r) Juven. Satyr. 15. v. 4.  Juvenal remarks, Effigies Sacri nitet aurea Cercopitheci.  
The Superstition of worshipping this Animal obtained not only amongst the Ancients, but there are Instances likewise of a later date, and what 
(s) J. Linschoten apud ●heod●de By Indiae Orient. part. 2. cap. 46. p.m. 111.  Johannes Linschoten relates, is very remarkable. How that in the Year 1554. the Portuguese having taken the Island of Ceylon, they proposed to rob a Temple on the top of Adam's Pike; but they found nothing there, but a little Cabinet adorned with Gold and Jewels, in which was kept the Tooth of an Ape, which they took away, to the great grief of the Kings of that Place; who sent Ambassadors to the Portuguese, and offered them Seventy thousand Ducats for the Tooth; which the Portuguese were willing enough to take, but were distwaded from it by their Bishop Gaspar, who told them, that it was a Crime, thus to encourage the Idolatry of the Indians; whereupon he burned the Tooth, and slung the Ashes into the River. Joh. Euseb. Nierembergius 
(t) J. Eus. Nieremberg. Hist. Nat. l. 9 cap. 46. p. 180.  hath the same Story, but varies in the Account of some Particulars. And Joh. Petrus Maffeius 
(u) Joh. Pet. Maffeij Hist. Indic. lib. 1. p.m. 36.  gives us a Relation of one of their Temples, which for Magnificence, might vie with any at Rome: His words are these; Sanè fanum est Simiae dicatum: Cujus duntaxat Pecori in victimarum usum custodiendo, Porticus miram in longitudinem excurrit, Columnarum Septingentarum è Marmore, tantae magnitudinis, ut Agrippae Columnas, quae in celeberrimo quondam omnium Deorum Templo Romae visuntur, sine dubio adaequent. Now these Animals being worshipped by the Indians as Gods, 'tis natural to believe (as Lucretius suggests) that they would invent and relate prodigious things concerning them; and no doubt this gave the occasion to the Poets and Historians of making such fabulous Representations of them. How far the latter might be concerned in the addition of Horns to the Satyrs Heads, I shall not at present inquire: I call it an Addition, because there is no Account from any credible Author, that there were ever observed any of the Apekind to have Horns. Possibly some ancient Statues or Paintings might give some light into this matter: for ●he ancient Statuaries and Painters were curious in representing them; and Pliny recommends, as excellent in this kind, the satire of Mylo, of Lucippus, Antiphalus, Protogenes, Ariston, and Nicomachus, as Pieces admired in those days.  
Albertus Magnus 
(w) Albert. Magnus de Animalib. lib. 22. p.m. 223. Pilosus est Animal Compositum ex homine superious, & Capra inferius; sed Cornua habet in front; & est de genere Simiarum; sed multùm monstruosum; & aliquotiens incedit erectum, & efficitur d●mitum. Hoc asserunt in Disertis habitare AEthiopiae; & aliquotiens captum & in Alexandriam deductum, & mortuum sale infusum & in Constantinopolin delatum.  who was happier in guessing, than in proving or describing what he meant; tells us indeed, that the satire (whom he calls Pilosus) was of the Apekind; but he makes such an odd Composition of him, that one would take it to be rather a Chimaera, than a real Being: You may see his words in the Citations.   

Of the SPHINXES of the Ancients.  
WE come now in the last place to discourse of the Sphinxes of the Ancients, where I shall not relate all that is said of them; nor concern myself with the Mythology or Interpretation of the several Fables that have been invented about them; but I propose rather to show, that there were indeed such Animals which the Ancients called Sphinxes; and that they were not Men, but Brutes; and that they were of the Ape or Monkey-kind.  
If we consult the fabulous Descriptions that are given of the Sphinx, we shall find it a very monstrous Composition. Apollodorus 
(a) Apoll●dori Bibliothec. l. 3. c. 5. § 8. p.m. 170.  tells us, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. That Sphinx was the daughter of Echidna and Typho, she had the face of a Woman, the Breast, Feet, and Tail of a Lion, and the Wings of a Bird. And 
(b) Ausonius' in Grypho Ternarij.  Ansonius, 
Terruit Aoniam, Volucris, Leo, Virgo triformis  
Sphinx, volucris pennis, pedibus fera, front Puella.  But as their Fancies governed them, so they made their description. Clearchus (as I find him quoted in 
(c) Natalis Comes Mytholog. l. 9 c. 18.  Natalis Comes) has outdone them all; At Clearchus (saith he) Caput & Manus Puellae, Corpus Canis, vocem Hominis, Candam Draconis, Leonis ungues, Alas Avis, illam habuisse scripsit. Palaephatus 
(d) Palephatus de incredibilibus Historiis Cap. de Sphinge. p.m. 14.  is somewhat different in his Account, where he tells us, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. e. They say that the Cadmean Sphynx was a wild Beast, having the Body of a Dog, the Head and Face of a Virgin, the Wings of a Bird, and the Voice of a Man. But for the most part they make the Sphinx Biformis with a Maiden's Face and Lion's Feet; as the Scholiast upon 
(e) Eurip. in Phaenissis.  Euripides gives it, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. So the Scholiast upon 
(f) Aristophan. in Ra●is.  Aristophanes, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And Euripides himself, as he is quoted by 
(g) AElian. de Animal. l. 12. c. 7.  AElian, makes her to have the Tail and Feet of a Lion, in that Verse, 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  
Caudam remulcens ad Leoninos pedes.  Where we may observe that AElian tells us here that the Egyptian Statuaries, and the Theban Fables, made the Sphinx to be only Biformis: Biformem nobis conantur representare, ipsam ex Corpore Virgins & Leonis cum gravitate compositam architect ants, as Gesner there translates him: But the Greeks represented the Sphynx with wings; for as 
(h) AElian. de Animal. l. 12. cap. 38.  AElian in another place tells us, Sphingem quicunque vel Picturae vel Plasticae operam daunt, fingere alatam solent.  
But our chief Business is to inquire, how Nature hath form them; and not how the Poets, Painters, or Statuaries have, according to the Luxuriancy of their Fancy, feigned or figured them; to show what they really are in themselves, and not what Hieroglyphically the Ancients might intend or understand by them; and we shall find, that they are only a sort of Ape or Monkey, that is bred in AEthiopia and amongst the Troglodytes, of a comely Face, with long Breasts, thence up to their Neck not so hairy as on the rest of their Body; and are of a mild and gentle Nature. For thus 
i Plinij Hist. Nat. lib. 8. cap. 21. p.m. 168.  Pliny, Lyncas vulgo frequentes, & Sphinxes, fusco Pilo, mammis in Pectore geminis AEthiopia generat. And so 
(k) Solinus Polyhist. cap. 27. p.m. 39  Solinus, Inter Simias habentur & Sphinxes, villosae comis (Salmasius reads it villosae omnes) mammis prominulis ac profundis, dociles ad feritatis obli●●ionem. AElian 
(l) AElian. de Animal. lib. 16. cap. 15.  places them amongst the wild Beasts of India, whe● he tells us, Naturali quodam Ingenio & Prudentia valent etiam apud nos Anima●●●, non totidem tamen, quot sunt in India: illic enim hujusmodi sunt, Elephantus, Psittacus, Sphinxes & nuncupati Satyri, & Indica Formica. And Artemidorus in 
(m) Strabo Geograph. lib. 16. p. 533.  Strabo tells us, that the Sphinxes, Cynocephali and Cepi are bred amongst the Troglodytes. Agatharchides 
(n) Agatharchides apud Photij Biblioth. p.m. 1362. cap. 38.  confirms the same, and gives us this Account of them; 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. i.e. The Sphinxes, Cynocephali and Cepi are sent to Alexandria from the Country of the Troglodytes and AEthiopia. The Sphinxes are like to what they are painted, only they are all hairy, and mild and gentle in their Nature: they have a great deal of Cunning, and a Method of Learning what they attain to, that one would wonder at their aptness to any thing. Diodorus Siculus 
(o) Diodorus Siculus Biblioth. lib. 3. p.m. 167.  gives us much the same Relation, and 'tis likely Agatharchides borrowed his from him: for he tells us, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. i e. Sphinxes circa Troglodyticam & AEthiopiam existunt, formâ his non absimiles, quae Arte Pictorum exhibentur, nisi quòd hirsutia tantummodò differunt. Placidi illis sunt Animi, & versuti, artisque quae compendio tradi solet, admodum capaces. But Philostorgius 
(p) Philostorgius Hist. Ecclesiast. l. 3. c. 11. p. 41.  is so particular in his Description, and he is the more to be credited, because he declares he had seen them himself, that I think I need no more Authorities to prove what I have here laid down, that these Sphinxes were only a sort of Ape or Monkey. I will therefore give you his own words, which are these; 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. i e. A Sphinx is a sort of Ape (I shall write what I saw myself) all the rest of whose Body is ●air 〈…〉ike other Apes. But it's Sternum or Breast is smooth without hair up 〈◊〉 the throat. It has Mammae or Breasts like a Woman; little reddish Pi 〈…〉 les like Millet Seeds, running round that part of the Body that is bare; very prettily suiting with the Flesh colour in the middle. It's Face is roundish, and resembles a Woman's. It's Voice is very much like the Humane, only it is not articulate, but praecipitate; and like one that speaks unintelligibly through Anger and Indignation. When 'tis incensed, it's Voice is deeper. This Animal is very wild, and crafty, and not easily tamed. And Pierius, as I find him quoted by 
(q) Phil. Camerarij Operae subcisivae sieve Meditat. Hist. Cent. 1. Cap. 71. p. m. 325.  Philip Camerarius, gives us much the same description of one he saw at Verona. Harum ego unam (faith he) Veronae quum effem vidi; Mammis illi & Glabris & Candidis, à Pectore propendentibus. Circumducebat eam circulator quidam Gallus, ex ignotis antea Insulis recens advectam. And a little after adds, Ipsa verò Sphinx toto erat pectore glabello, fancy & auribus humanis proprioribus, dorso hispido supra modum, fusco & oblongo Pilo, eoque densissimo.  
What has been said, I think fully makes out, that the Sphinx is not a mere Figment of the Poets, but an Animal bred in Africa, of the Ape or Monkey-kind. 'Tis different from our Orang-Outang in the colour of its Hair; in the roundness and comeliness of its Face; in its Breasts, being pendulous and long; and the red Pimples it hath on the naked part of its Body. Pliny tells us (as I have elsewhere remarked) that the Sphinxes have Pouches in their Chaps as Satyrs and Monkeys have; and the Poets describing them with a Lion's Tail, make me apt to think, that they are of the Monkey-kind.  
FINIS.