An attempt has been made, chiefly by the unlearned, to regard Paulina as the image of Mafuca. There is, however, a considerable physiognomical difference between the two animals. For me and many other naturalists Mafuca remains up to this time an enigma, which is slurred over by others with the help of a few phrases. Paulina, on the other hand, and animals of the same character, display much to remind us of the illustration given by Gratiolet and Alix of their _Troglodytes Aubryi_, although the drawing was taken from a specimen dissected by the French naturalists which had lost its hair through maceration in an impure preserving fluid. The growth or the lack of hair involves considerable external differences in specimens of these animals, yet I repeat my assertion that there is a resemblance between Paulina and her fellows, and Aubry’s chimpanzee. The certain special characters presented by chimpanzee forms here mentioned (Paulina and _Troglodytes Aubryi_) remind us of the bam found on the Niam-Niam in Central Africa, which was probably first discovered by A. de Malzac, and was afterwards more exactly described by Schweinfurth. In _Cassell’s Natural History_ (i. 39) the Nschiego-Mbouvé (_Troglodytes Tschégo Duvernoy_; _Troglodytes calvus Du Chaillu et Wyman_), is described and drawn by Duncan, but only in profile, from a stuffed specimen. In this there is much to remind us of the profile of Mafuca, including the very shrivelled nose. An illustration is given in the same work of the anthropoid Koolo-Kamba, here given as a distinct species, and identified in the systematic catalogue as _Troglodytes Koolo-Kamba_, together with _Troglodytes Aubryi_; here we see a full-grown chimpanzee of the ordinary kind, to which a front view of the head of the Aubry chimpanzee, as it was published by Gratiolet and Alix, has been affixed. Honest research should stand aloof from such confusion. By Brehm, the Mafuca was given as the representative of the species already established by Duvernoy, _Troglodytes Tschégo_ or _Anthropopithecus_, and this assertion is accepted by Martin.[102] The latter remarks that this ape cannot be classified either with the chimpanzee or the gorilla, and gives some reasons for his assertions.