it has since been pointed out to me (quite kindly) that a raccoon was much more likely, there being no monkeys in boston, and monkeys being considerably more agile than raccoons, and i agree that what they say sounds wise, and i'm perfectly happy to think of it as raccoon, though never having been of a naturalistic bent, wouldn't know the difference between the two, but raccoon or monkey, as the creature may have been, it is too late now to find out. i regret squeamishness got in the way of scientific inquiry, but that is the way general ignorance goes.