affinities of Barytherium of the Egyptian Eocene and Pyrotherium of the Lower Tertiaries of Patagonia; although it is possible that they may both be offshoots from the primitive proboscidean stock. Pyrotherium had a pair of upwardly directed tusks in the lower jaw. The cheek-teeth are five in number and carry transverse ridges similar to those on the molars of Dinotherium, although there are only two to each tooth. If really related to the Proboscidea, Pyrotherium may be derived from the African ancestral stock of that group which reached South America by Way of a former land-connexion between that continent and Africa. So far as can be determined, Barytherium approximates in many respects to Dinotherium, but in others seems to approach Uintatherium of the North American Tertiaries (see Amblypoda).
See C. W. Andrews, Descriptive Catalogue of the Tertiary Vertebrata of the Fayum, British Museum, 1906. (R. L.*)
PROBOSCIS, the trunk of an elephant (Gr. προβοσκίς, πρό, before, βόσκειν, to feed), the long flexible snout of the order of Mammalia called Proboscidea (q.v.), which embraces the elephant and its extinct allies the mammoths and mastodons. The term is also applied to the snout of the tapir and of the “kahan” or proboscis-monkey (Nasalis larvatus), and more particularly to the elongated parts of the mouth of various insect, such as the rostrum or beak of a rhynchophorus beetle, the antlia of Lepidoptera, the sucking mouth of the house-fly, &c. Various worms possess a tubular structure which can be extended at the anterior portion of the body, and some gastropods a sucking tongue, to both of which the name “proboscis” is applied.
PROBOSCIS-MONKEY, a large, long-tailed, red Bornean species characterized by the extraordinary prolongation of the nose of the adult male, which hangs, however, down in front of the upper lip and does not stand straight out from the face in the manner commonly represented in pictures. From this feature the species, which is the only representative of its genus, derives its name of Nasalis larvatus. In females and young the nose is much less developed, with a tendency to turn upwards in the latter. This monkey is a leaf-eater, nearly allied to the langurs, as typified by the sacred ape of India. (See Primates.)
PROBUS, MARCUS AURELIUS, Roman emperor A.D. 276 to 282, was a native of Sirmium in Pannonia. At an early age he entered the army, where he distinguished himself under the emperors Valerian, Claudius and Aurelian. He was appointed governor of the East by the emperor Tacitus, at whose death he was immediately proclaimed his successor by the soldiers. Florianus, who had claimed to succeed his brother, was put to death by his own troops, and the senate eagerly ratified the choice of the army. The reign of Probus was mainly spent in successful wars by which he re-established the security of all the frontiers, the most important of these operations being directed to clearing Gaul of the Germans. Probus had also put down three usurpers, Saturninus, Proculus and Bonosus. One of his principles was never to allow the soldiers to be idle, and to employ them in time of peace on useful works, such as the planting of vineyards in Gaul, Pannonia and other districts. This increase of duties was naturally unpopular, and while the emperor was urging on the draining of the marshes of his native place he was attacked and slain by his own soldiers. Scarcely any emperor has left behind him so good a reputation; his death was mourned alike by senate and people, and even the soldiers repented and raised a monument in his honour.
Life by Vopiscus; Zosimus i. 64; Zonaras xii. 29; Aurelius Victor, Caes. and Epit. 37; H. Schiller, Geschichte der römischen Kaiserzeit (1883), vol. i.; E. Lépaulle, Etude historique sur M. A. Probus d'après la numismatique (1885); Pauly-Wissowa, Realencyclopädie, ii. 2516 (Henze).
PROBUS, MARCUS VALERIUS, of Berytus, Roman grammarian and critic, flourished during the reign of Nero. He was a student rather than a teacher, and devoted himself to the criticism and elucidation of the texts of classical authors (especially the most important Roman poets) by means of marginal notes or by signs, after the manner of the Alexandrine grammarians. In this way he treated Horace, Lucretius, Terence and Persius, the biography of the last-named being probably taken from Probus’s introduction to his edition of the poet. With the exception of these texts, he published little, but his lectures were preserved in the notes taken by his pupils. Some of his criticisms on Virgil may be preserved in the commentary on the Bucolics and Georgics which goes under his name. We possess by him part of a treatise De notis, probably an excerpt from a larger work. It contains a list of abbreviations used in official and historical writings (especially proper names), in laws, legal pleadings and edicts.
The following works have been wrongly attributed to him. (1) Catholica Probi, on the declension of nouns, the conjugation of verbs, and the rhythmic endings of sentences. This is now generally regarded as the work of the grammarian Marius Plotius acerdos (3rd century). (2) Instituta artium, on the eight parts of speech, also called Ars vaticana from its having been found in a Vatican MS. As mention is made in it of the baths of Diocletian, it cannot be earlier than the 4th century. It is possibly by a later Probus, whose existence is, however, problematical; (3) Appendix Probi, treating of the noun, the use of cases, rules of orthogra by (valuable in reference to the pronunciation of Latin at the timeii and a table of Differentiae. As the author has evidently used the Instituta, it also must be assigned to a late date. (4) De nomine excerpta, a compilation from various grammatical works.
See J. Steup, De Probis grammaticis (1871); Teufiel-Schwabe, Hist. of Roman Literature (Eng. trans.), 301.
PROCEDURE (Fr. procédure, from Lat. procedere, to go forward), in general, a method or course of action. In law, procedure may be defined as the mode in which the successive steps in litigation are taken. As a term in English law it dates only from the passing of the Common Law Procedure Acts 1852–1860; it is usually coupled with, or more often replaced by, the word “practice.” The procedure of the High Court of Justice in England is governed by the rules of the supreme court, which are published in the Annual Practice. Procedure has been defined (per Lush, L.J., Poyser v. Minors, L. R. 7 Q.B.D. 329), as “the mode of proceeding by which a legal right is enforced as distinguished from the law which gives or defines the right, and which by means of the proceeding the court is to administer; the machinery as distinguished from the product.” T. E. Holland (Elements of Jurisprudence, 1906, p. 86) describes procedure, or “adjective” law, as that part of law which provides a method of aiding and protecting rights.
See the articles on the various branches of law, as Admiralty Jurisdiction, Criminal Law, Divorce, &c.; also Action, Appeal, Evidence, Pleading, Summons, Trial, &c.,
PROCESS, a general term now technically employed for the photo-mechanical processes by which illustrations are reproduced in printing. Until the last quarter of the 19th century reproductive processes, save as regards line reproduction, can hardly be said to have had an existence. Paintings, drawings, and engravings, which it was desired to put into form which by means of the printing-press could be multiplied indefinitely had to go through a process of interpretation by an engraver or draughtsman, who, on a metal plate, a block of wood or stone, gave a rendering of the original subject. The means at his disposal were lines and dots, which, varying in their thickness and proximity, expressed dark or light passages in the scheme of light and shade of the original. It will readily be understood how such interpretations would vary. An engraver with fine art instincts would produce a result as distinct in character as an engraving as was the original as a painting or drawing, and engravings were sought after as works of art, and treasured for their artistic qualities. But engraving of this kind took time. Years were devoted to the production of one steel- or copperplate, while wood engravers who were artists could only work on a block when in the mood; and for that mood the publisher had to wait, and he grew impatient and was willing to accept rapid interpretation of originals by men who could produce them under other than artistic conditions. But the pain of the artist at the bad rendering of his original was often great, so that he, not less than the publisher, though for another reason, hailed
