record is that of an Indian rhinoceros which lived for thirty-seven
years in the London Zoological Gardens. The usual
duration of life in the case of horses, asses and zebras is from
fifteen to thirty years, but instances of individuals reaching
fifty years are fairly well authenticated. Domestic cattle may
live from twenty-five to thirty years, sheep and goats from
twelve to fourteen years, antelopes rather longer, especially in
the case of the larger forms. A giraffe has lived for nineteen
years in the London Zoological Gardens. Deer are reputed to
live longer than sheep, and records of individuals at the London
Gardens confirm this, but it is doubtful if they live as long as
cattle. Camels are long-lived, according to repute, but actual
records show no great age; a llama which died in the London
Gardens at the age of seventeen years showed unmistakable
signs of senility. The hippopotamus is another large ungulate
to which great longevity has been assigned, but the longest
actual record is the case of a female born in the London Gardens
which died in its thirty-fifth year. The duration of life assigned
to domestic swine is about twenty years; an Indian wild boar,
alive in the London Zoological Gardens in 1910, and apparently
in full vigour, was fifteen years old. Elephants are usually
supposed capable of reaching great ages, but the actual records
of menagerie and military animals show that thirty to forty
years is a normal limit. Facts as to rodents are not numerous;
the larger forms such as hares and rabbits may live for ten years,
smaller forms such as rats and mice, for five or six years. Bats
have a reputation for long duration of life, and tropical fruit-bats
are known to have lived for seventeen years. No great ages
have been recorded for Carnivora, but the average is fairly high.
Twenty-five years appears to be a limit very rarely exceeded by
lions, tigers or bears; domestic cats may live for from twelve
to twenty-three years, and dogs from sixteen to eighteen years,
though cases of as many as thirty-four years have been noted.
Less is known of the smaller forms, but menagerie records show
that ages between twelve and twenty are frequently reached.
There were in 1910 in the London Zoological Gardens, apparently
in good health, a meerkat at least twelve years old, a sand-badger
fourteen years and a ratel nineteen years of age. Records
regarding monkeys are unsatisfactory, for these creatures are
notoriously delicate in captivity, and it is practically certain
that under such circumstances they rarely die of old age. A
grey lemur eleven years old and a chimpanzee eleven and a half,
both in good health in the London Zoological Gardens, appear
to be the oldest primates definitely recorded. Estimates based
on size, condition of the skull and so forth obtained by examination
of wild specimens that have been killed would seem to
establish a rough correspondence between the size of monkeys
and their duration of life, and to set the limits as between seven
or eight and thirty years.
With regard to the human race, there seems to be almost no doubt but that the average duration of life has increased with civilization; the generally improved conditions of life, the greater care of the young and of the aged and the advance in medical and surgical science far more than outweigh any depressing effect caused by the more strenuous and nervous activity required by modern social organization. The expectation of life of those who attain the age of sixty varies with race, sex and occupation, but is certainly increasing, and an increasing number of persons have a chance of reaching and do reach ages between ninety and one hundred. Careful investigation has thrown doubt almost amounting to disproof on the much-quoted cases of great longevity, such as that of Thomas Parr, the Shropshire peasant, who was supposed to have reached his hundred and fifty-third year, and, although the existence of centenarians is thoroughly established, any ages exceeding a hundred by more than two or three years are, at the most, dubious.
A survey of the facts of longevity, so far as these are established on reasonable evidence, discloses that the recorded ages both of men and animals are much shorter than those assigned in popular belief. The duration of life is usually brief in the animal kingdom, and except for some fish and reptiles, and possibly whales, it is certain that a man enjoys the longest average duration of life and that centenarians occur more frequently amongst men than amongst most of the lower animals.
Theories of Longevity.—Ray Lankester has pointed out that several meanings are attached to the word longevity. It may be used of an individual, and in this sense has little importance, partly because of the inevitable variability of the individual, and partly because there may be individuals that are abnormal in duration of life, just as there are abnormalities in weight or height. It may be used for the average duration of life of all the individuals of a species and so be another way of expressing the average mortality that affects the species, and that varies not only with structure and constitution but with the kind of enemies, accidents and conditions to which the members of the species are subject. If we reflect on the large incidence of mortality from external causes affecting a species and particularly the young of a species, we shall see that we must conclude that intrinsic, physiological causes can have relatively little weight in determining the average mortality rate. Finally, longevity may be used, and is most conveniently used, to denote the specific potential longevity, that is to say the duration of life that would be attained by normal individuals of a species if the conditions were most favourable. It is necessary to keep in mind these various applications of the term when considering the theoretical explanations that have been associated with the empirical facts.
There is a certain relation between size and longevity. As a general rule small animals do not live so long as larger creatures. Whales survive elephants, elephants live longer than camels, horses and deer, and these again than rabbits and mice. But the relation is not absolute; parrots, ravens and geese live longer than most mammals and than many larger birds. G. L. L. Buffon tried to find a more definite measure of longevity, and believed that it was given by the ratio between the whole period of life and the period of growth. He believed that the possible duration of life was six or seven times that of the period of growth. Man, he said, takes fourteen years to grow, and his duration of life is ninety to one hundred years; the horse has reached its full size at four years of age and may live for a total period of twenty-five to thirty years. M. J. P. Flourens attempted to make Buffon’s suggestion more exact; he took the end of the period of growth as the time at which the epiphyses of the long bones united with the bones themselves, and on this basis held that the duration of life was five times the length of the period of growth. The theories of Buffon and Flourens, however, do not apply to all vertebrates and have no meaning in the case of invertebrates. Y. Bunge has suggested that in the case of mammals the period taken by the new-born young to double in weight is an index of the rapidity of growth and is in a definite relation to the possible duration of life. M. Oustalet has discussed the existence of definite relations between duration of life and size, rate of growth, period of gestation and so forth, and found so many exceptions that no general conclusion could be drawn. He finally suggested that diet was the chief factor in determining the span of life. E. Metchnikoff has provided the most recent and fullest criticism and theory of the physiological causes of longevity. He admits that many factors must be involved, as the results vary so much in different kinds of animals. He thinks that too little is known of the physiological processes of invertebrates to draw any valid conclusions in their case. With regard to vertebrates, he calls attention to the gradual reduction of longevity as the scale of life is ascended. On the whole, reptiles live much longer than birds, and birds than mammals, the contrast being specially notable when birds and mammals are compared. He dismisses the effect of the reproductive tax from possible causes of short duration of life, for the obvious reason that longevity is nearly equal in the two sexes, although females have a much greater reproductive drain. He points out that the hind-gut or large intestine is least developed in fishes, relatively small in reptiles, still small but relatively larger in birds and largest in mammals, relatively and absolutely, the caecum or caeca being reckoned as part of the hind-gut. The area of the intestinal tract in question is of relatively little importance in digestion, although a considerable
