Pygathrix nemaeus, (Linnaeus 1771) (Linnaeus, 1771)

Brandon-Jones, Douglas, 2024, The scientific discovery and subsequent history of the douc monkey Pygathrix nemaeus (Linnaeus, 1771) near Da Nang, Vietnam, Mammalia (Warsaw, Poland) 88 (4), pp. 353-361 : 353-354

2 The douc holotype

Brisson (1756: 205) first described “ Le grand Singe de la Cochinchine ” from a specimen sent to Réaumur ’ s museum, where Brisson was a natural history demonstrator. René-Antoine Ferchault de Réaumur (1683 – 1757) bequeathed his collections and manuscripts to the Academy of Sciences, but by royal decree, Buffon, director of the Jardin du Roi, appropriated them for the royal collection, known as the King ’ s cabinet ( Farber 1972: 269; Morel 2010: 3). When Buffon (1766: 298, footnote) claimed to have received from M(onsieur) Poivre a monkey and its Cochinchinese name of Douc, the gift and information were second-hand. Morel (2010: 9) cited three letters from Poivre to Réaumur, enthusing about contributing to Réaumur ’ s collections. In one of these, dated 18 March 1754 from Mauritius, replying to letters of 27 November 1749 and 7 November 1750 received on 2 December 1753, Poivre expressed his pleasure at learning that the Cochinchina monkey had arrived intact:

The Cochinchinese word for this animal is D ’ ouc, distinct from the monkey called khi in that language. I have seen the D ’ ouc only in Cochinchina where it is abundant. It lives on wild fruits; usually keeping to the trees where it moves with singular ease and agility. It seldom descends to the ground where it seems disconcerted by its ungainly bipedal gait. The one I sent you was shot dead and skinned in the field. I have tried unsuccessfully to keep them alive. The youngster I had, lived only a few days. The Cochinchinese assured me that they cannot be reared. The melancholy that overwhelms this animal on capture eventually kills it. That is all I know of this monkey species ( Morel 2010: 30, here freely translated).

Khi is a Vietnamese word now used for the macaque. Colobine monkeys are called Voọc ( Dang et al. 1994), of which D ’ ouc is presumably a mispronunciation, misspelling, or its V was misread as a D, the apostrophe indicating that the word has two syllables, with the stress on the second one. The Vietnamese word is unlikely to have changed, as Finlayson (1826: 251) listed Vock as the Siamese word for Year of the Monkey. Both words are akin to the Malay onomatopoeic vernacular name “ Berok ” ( Flower 1900: 315) for the pigtailed macaque Macaca nemestrina (Linnaeus 1766) . People unable to make dental contact with the lip, commonly pronounce “ V ” as a “ B ”. Lacépède (1789: xii) reported the “ Guenon à long nez ” as occurring in Cochinchina. His informants, probably reliant on poor descriptions or illustrations of the Bornean proboscis monkey Nasalis larvatus (von Wurmb, 1784) , were evidently further confused in claiming that its local name “ khî dôc ” means “ large monkey ”. Lecturing in 1828, É. Geoffroy Saint-Hilaire (1829: 13) questioned the then consensus that the genus Nasalis is invalid, but accepted this purported range extension.

Buffon (1766: 299) suspected that the douc also occurs in Madagascar because Flacourt (1658: 153, here translated) reported a “ white monkey usually on its hind legs, with a white tail, tanned cap and two tanned blotches on its flanks … this species called sifac lives on beans and is abundant near Andrivoure, Damboulombe and Ranoufoutchi ”. This surprisingly competent description of Verreaux ’ s sifaka Propithecus verreauxi Grandidier, 1867 barely resembles the douc, but bipedal locomotion in the douc, reported by Buffon (1766: 301) unsourced, evidently prompted his conflation of the two species.

Engendering two generic names, Lasiopyga Illiger 1811 (p. 68) and Pygathrix É. Geoffroy Saint-Hilaire 1812 (p. 90), both meaning “ furry buttocks ”, Buffon (1789: 85, pl. 23) emphasized the absent ischial callosities with a dorsal view of the douc kneeling on a tree branch. Linnaeus (1771: 521) withheld his inspiration for the name Simia Nemaeus , but it may be relevant that the Nemean lion features mainly as the hide worn by its slayer, Heracles. Buffon had openly and fundamentally opposed Linnean taxonomy ( Sloan 1976). Although illustrated with thighs apart, Buffon ’ s (1766, pl. 41) figure depicts no genitalia. These were probably missing in a skin without callosities, but Buffon ’ s (1766: 301) avowed ignorance of whether female doucs menstruate perhaps indicates that he assumed it female. Buffon ’ s (1789) plate 23 is equivocal, but the lateral corner of the white rump patch seems to have the semi-detached slight extension that Lippold (1977) found male-linked. I. Geoffroy Saint-Hilaire (1851: 12) listed the holotype (No. 26 of the old catalogue) as an adult female. Rode (1938: 207) also listed it as a female No. 26 (71) in poor condition, but claimed that Diard sent it in 1822. Supplying a colour photograph of presumably the same specimen in lateral view, Groves (2007, Figure 2) treated it as the holotype, without noting its gender.