A 582369
{
TAIRE
E
BET
FAIRE
¦
1
......
6.
7.
TOWE
MARS
ye
1.
Rulli
Th
anh nghệ thu được
5
m
2
• { {
سمات
And yes t
(shimot
JOMOS
Wilm
Anes and Half-Apes
އއގ ގ
Verwa
iritalia.
(hipolinary Marines
Mitäs mer.
3.
4.
MAN AND APES,
AN EXPOSITION OF
STRUCTURAL RESEMBLANCES AND
DIFFERENCES BEARING UPON QUESTIONS OF
AFFINITY AND ORIGIN.
BY
K
Jo
ST. GEORGE, MIVART, F.R.S., V.P.Z.S.,
LECTURER ON ZOOLOGY AND COMPARATIVE ANATOMY AT ST. MARY'S HOSPITAL.
LONDON:
"
ROBERT HARDWICKE, 192, PICCADILLY.
1873.
LONDON:
PRINTED BY W. CLOWES AND SONS, STAMFORD STREET
AND CHAring cross.
$
7
Maa
1 Je zs
O
ΤΟ
W. K. PARKER, ESQ., F.R.S.,
W
THIS LITTLE WORK IS
Dedicated,
AS A SLIGHT MARK OF THE ADMIRATION
AND REGARD FELT FOR HIM
BY
HIS AFFECTIONATE FRIEND,
THE AUTHOR.
}
422676
DESCRIPTION OF FRONTISPIECE.
FIG.
1. The Gorilla (Troglodytes Gorilla).
2. Skull of the Gorilla vertically and antero-posteriorly
bisected, to show the great sagittal crest (s) rising
above the brain cavity, and the supra-orbital crest (0)
above the orbit.
3. The Squirrel Monkey (Chrysothrix sciurea).
4. The Potto (Perodicticus Potto), showing the rudimentary
condition of the index finger.
5. The Angwántibo (Arctocebus calabarensis).
6. The Tarsier (Tarsius spectrum), showing the foot at its
maximum of elongation, relatively, in the whole order
Primates.
7. The Aye-Aye (Cheiromys madagascariensis).
LIST OF WOODCUTS.
1. Chimpanzee (Troglodytes).
2. Orang (Simia) young .
3. Orang, adult male.
4. Siamang Gibbon (Hylobates)
5. Lar Gibbon
6. Wouwou Gibbon
7. Entellus (Semnopithecus)
8. Black-crested monkey
9. Moor monkey
10. White-thighed monkey (Colobus)
11. Temminck's Colobus
12. Mona (Cercopithecus)
13. Green monkey
14. Diana monkey
15. White-nosed monkey
16. White-eyelid monkey
17. Toque (Macacus)
18. Rhesus
•
:
•
•
19. Wanderoo
20. Chacma (Cynocephalus)
21. Mandrill
22. Drill
23. Coaita (Ateles)
24. Chameck
25. The brown Sapajou (Cebus)
PAGE
12
15
19
21
21
23
23
25
25
29
29
31
31
35
35
37
37
39
39
43
斤斤齿齿。
43
45
45
47
47
vi
LIST OF WOODCUTS.
26. Yellow-breasted Sapajou
27. Red Howler (Mycetes)
28. Couxio (Pithecia)
29. Short-tailed Saki (Brachyurus)
30. Marmoset (Hapale)
31. Silky monkey
32. Skull of ape
♪
33. Skull of Lemur
34. Diadem Lemur (Indris)
35. The short-tailed Indri
36. Vari (Lemur) .
37. White-fronted Lemur
38. Slow Lemur (Nycticebus)
39. Slender Lemur (Loris)
40. Maholi Galago (Galago)
41. Foot of Man and of Orang
42. Skeleton of trunk (man)
43. Skull of Man
•
44. Skull of Chimpanzee
45. Skull of Orang
46. Blade bone of Man
47. Human arm and hand bones
48. Skeleton of Man
49. Skeleton of Orang
50. Skeleton of Chimpanzee
51. Human haunch-bone and sacrum
52. Human leg and foot bones
53. Ankle-bones of Chierogaleus and Galago
54. Brain of Man
55. Brain of Orang
56. Brain of Chimpanzee
57. Brain of Mandrill
58. Kahau
59. Face of Kahau
60. Dentition of Hapalemur
61. Axolotl
¿
1
PAGE
51
53
57
57
61
61
LIILLIARDOGG
65
67
71
71
73
73
77
$79
89
93
99
99
101
107
109
113
115
115
119
123
127
139
139
141
141
153
153
157
183
}
CONTENTS.
PART I.
External form, habits, geographical distribution and
classification
PART II.
External skeleton (skin and hair), and internal skeleton
(the bones)
•
:
PART III.
Nervous system, visceral anatomy, summary of
characters and questions of affinity and origin.
PAGE
1
84
134
MAN AND APES.
PART I
THE too frequent injustice of popular awards
is a trite subject of remark. Christopher
Columbus, with a hardihood now somewhat
difficult to realise, sailed across an utterly
unknown ocean to the discovery of a New
World, which nevertheless has not received
its appellation from him, but from his imitator,
Amerigo Vespucci.
As with the new geographical region so
with the new force "galvanism." It received
its name from Galvani, who called attention
to it in 1789; but Swammerdamm had none
the less discovered it more than a hundred
and thirty years earlier.
B
2
MAN AND APES.
Again, the doctrine of evolution as applied
to organic life-the doctrine, that is, which
teaches that the various new species of
animals and plants have manifested them-
selves through a purely natural process of
hereditary succession-is widely spoken of by
the term "Darwinism." Yet this doctrine is
far older than Mr. Darwin, and is held by
many who deem that which is truly "Dar-
winism" (namely, a belief in the origin of
species by natural selection) to be a crude
and utterly untenable hypothesis.
We find yet another and parallel example
of popular misapprehension in the opinion
widely prevalent respecting one species of
those animals-the apes-which most nearly
resemble us in bodily structure.
The species referred to is the much-talked-
of Gorilla, and the popular misapprehension
concerning it is twofold; first as to its dis-
covery, and secondly as to its nature.
The Gorilla is very generally supposed to
have been first discovered and made known
MAN AND APES.
со
to science by M. de Chaillu, whereas, in truth,
it was both discovered and described years
before M. de Chaillu's name was heard of in
connection with it.
It was discovered by Dr. Thomas Savage,
who, with the assistance of an American
missionary, the Rev. Mr. Wilson, procured
enough anatomical materials to enable Pro-
fessor Jeffries Wyman (in the United States)
to describe* important parts of its anatomy.
Other specimens were soon afterwards
procured, and were described in our own
country by Professor Owen† more than
twenty years ago.
The misconception as to the discovery of
the Gorilla, however, is but a trifling matter;
that as to its nature and rank is of far greater
importance.
The lively interest which has been awak-
ened by recent assertions respecting what is
* See 'Boston Journal of Natural History,' vol. iv.
1843-4, and vol. v. 1847.
† See Pro. Zoo. Soc.' 1851, and Trans. Zool. Soc.'
vol. iv. and v.
C
B 2
4
MAN AND APES.
called "the descent of man," manifests itself
far and wide in the daily press-in popular
caricatures-on the theatrical stage, and in
the Houses of our own Legislature as in the
French Assembly.
It is interesting also to note that whereas
a few years ago the notion of the brute ori-
gin of man was vehemently and all but uni-
versally scouted, the public are now carried
by a wave of sentiment in a diametrically
opposite direction, and there is even a widely
diffused sympathy with notions which but
lately were found so unpalatable. Then there
was not tolerance to listen to, far less to fairly
appreciate, the arguments advanced by cer-
tain men of science in support of their views.
Now there is as little disposition as ever to
weigh evidence, but the tendency is to accept
without examination and without criticism the
statements of every advocate of the essential
unity of man and beasts.
Concomitantly with this change of senti-
ment there has also arisen a popular belief in
MAN AND APES.
5
the semi-humanity of the Gorilla, or at least
an impression that the Gorilla possesses a very
special and exceptional affinity to man. This
animal is now popularly supposed to be
closely connected with that "missing link"
which, as is asserted, once bridged over the
gulf separating man from the apes. The
Gorilla, if not the direct ancestor of man,
is yet generally thought to be related with
exceptional closeness to such direct ancestor,
and so to constitute the one existing and
visible bond between ourselves and the lower
animals. Highest of apes-close ally of the
Negro-the Gorilla is by some supposed to
surpass and excel the humbler and commoner
apes, as man surpasses and excels the Gorilla.
It is proposed here, putting aside all pre-
judice, to investigate, by the unimpassioned
process of enumerating and weighing facts of
structure, what is the teaching of nature as to
the affinities of various apes to man. It is not,
therefore, intended to touch directly upon the
question of the ape origin of man considered
6
MAN AND APES.
in the totality of his nature, because that is a
matter not to be settled without the interven-
tion of the philosopher and the psychologist.
The anatomist as such, however wide and
detailed may be his acquaintance with different
animals-is necessarily incompetent to offer a
valid opinion on the subject.
The matters to be here investigated concern
physical science only-facts of zoology and of
anatomy, together with the inferences which
may be drawn from them respecting man's
bodily structure. The questions, then, which
are to occupy us, are the following: 1. What
is the real zoological position and nature of
the Gorilla? 2. What are the degrees of
resemblance to man which the various kinds of
apes exhibit? 3. What is the bearing of these
facts upon the doctrine of evolution (or deriva-
tion), as applied to man's body, including
the question as to the direction which the line
of genetic affinity seems to take in passing
from man through the apes to lower animals?
Whatever existing species is most nearly
MAN AND APES.
7
related to that extinct root-form, which, ac-
cording to Mr. Darwin's hypothesis, was the
immediate ancestor of man-must exhibit a
greater number of structural characters like
those of man than any other existing species.
The ape, next in affinity, must show the next
degree of resemblance, and so on.
If the Gorilla really possesses that excep-
tional affinity to man with which it is popu-
larly credited, it must exhibit a cluster of
structural approximations to man such as are
not to be found in any other animal. If,
again, there should be reason to think that
any anatomical peculiarities have special
hereditary significance (either from their not
being related to habit, or from the organ in
which they are found), then such peculiarities
should exist in the Gorilla if it deserves the
pre-eminence so commonly attributed to it.
In order to understand the first point to be
considered (the Gorilla's zoological position),
a few words must be said as to the classifica-
tion of animals generally.
8
MAN AND APES.
All the higher animals (from beasts to
fishes) are separated off from lower animals
(such as insects, worms, and shell-fish), and
form by themselves a great group (or sub-
kingdom) called VERTEBRATA.* The Verte-
brata are divided into five classes:-1. MAM-
MALIA (beasts). 2. AVES (birds). 3. REPTILIA
(reptiles). 4. BATRACHIA (frogs and efts).
5. PISCES (fishes).
Each of these classes is subdivided into a
number of subordinate groups termed orders,
and the class MAMMALIA may be divided into
about twelve of such groups.
These are (beginning with the lowest):
1. Monotremata (Duck-billed Platypus and
Echidna). 2. Marsupialia (pouched beasts).
3. Edentata (sloths, ant-eaters, &c.). 4. Ungu-
lata (hoofed beasts). 5. Proboscidea (elephants).
6. Sirenia (Dugong and Manatee). 7. Cetacea
(whales, porpoises). 8. Carnivora (flesh-eating
* So called because the animals contained in it always
possess a spinal column or back bone, which (except in
a few fishes) is made up of a series of separate bony
pieces, each of which is called a vertebra.
MAN AND APES.
9
beasts). 9. Rodentia (mice, squirrels, hares, &c.).
10. Insectivora (moles, hedgehogs, shrews, &c.).
11. Cheiroptera (bats). 12. Primates.
The order PRIMATES contains man (zoo-
logically considered) and all the apes and
Lemurs; and it is subdivided into two great
groups, or sub-orders. The first of these
contains man and the creatures most like him
(the apes), on which account it has been called
Anthropoidea. The second sub-order contains
the Lemurs proper and the animals most like
them, on which account it has been called
Lemuroidea, the creatures contained in it
when spoken of being generally also termed
"Half-apes" or "Lemuroids."
The animals contained in these two sub-
orders are exceedingly different, respectively,
in structure, and there can be no question but
that the anatomical differences between man
and the lowest apes are very much less than
those which distinguish the lowest apes from
the highest of the half-apes.
The Anthropoidea may conveniently be
10
MAN AND APES.
spoken of as man and apes, but structurally
the group is divisible into three families,* the
first of which (Hominida) contains man only
(Homo).
The apes may be classed in two families
(which, however, scarcely differ so much from
each other as do the apes, as a whole, from
man), which are as neatly distinguished by
geographical distribution as by structural
differences.
The first of these two ape families is termed
Simiada, and is made up of the apes of the
Old World. These are, in fact, almost confined
to Africa and Southern Asia, the Rock of
Gibraltar and Japan being the northern limits.
of the group.
The second ape family is called Cebidae, and
is exclusively confined to Tropical America.
* Orders (or sub-orders) are always in zoology sub-
divided into smaller groups, each of which is termed a
family, and each family is again sub-divided into smaller
and more subordinate groups termed genera. Each genera
finally is made up of one, few, or many species, as the
case may be.
JJACK SON
Brill
FIG. 1.—THE CHIMPANZEE (Troglodytes).
MAN AND APES.
13
The Simiada are again subdivided into
three smaller groups or sub-families:-1. The
Simina 2. Semnopithecine; and 3. Cyno-
pithecina. The first of these sub-families con-
tains the Gorilla, the Chimpanzee, the Orang,
and the Gibbons-or long-armed apes. These
creatures are the apes which, on the whole,
are most like man. They are often there-
fore emphatically spoken of as the "anthro-
poid apes," and they are also (on account of
the bony structure of their chest) termed
the "latisternal"
66
or 'broad-breastboned
""
apes.
The Gorilla and the Chimpanzee together
constitute the genus Troglodytes. They are
both inhabitants of the warmest parts of
Western Africa. The Gorilla is much the
larger and more bulky animal of the two; but
both kinds are vegetarians as to diet, and
arboreal in habit. That the Gorilla in external
appearance is not pre-eminently man-like may
be seen by the Frontispiece herewith given;
and a single visit to the British Museum
14
MAN AND APES.
will serve to convince any unprejudiced
observer what a mere brute it is.
The Chimpanzee (Fig. 1) has often been ex-
hibited alive in this country, and is an attrac-
tive feature in menageries, not only from its
resemblance to a child deformed by preter-
natural wrinkles of age, but also from its live-
liness and the facility with which it acquires
a number of playful tricks.
The anatomy of this animal was very accu-
rately described and figured by Tyson in his
'Anatomie of a Pigmie,' published in 1699,
and the representation of its external form
there given is much better than many which
have subsequently appeared.
The Orang (Figs. 2 and 3), which forms the
genus Simia is exclusively an inhabitant of
Borneo and Sumatra, where it attains a con-
siderable bulk, but not equal to that of the
Gorilla. Slow, solitary, and peaceful in its
habits, the Orang never voluntarily abandons
the lowland forests, which supply it at once
with shelter and with food.
Kyli
CENC
หง
Kow
FIG. 2.—THE Orang (Simia) IN IMMATURE CONDITION.
MAN AND APES.
17
In captivity its deliberation and langour
present a marked contrast with the petulant
vivacity of the Chimpanzee.
Nevertheless, when attacked it can defend
itself with alacrity and effect, as the following
anecdote, which Mr. Wallace tells us in his
very
interesting 'Malay Archipelago,' shows:-
"A few miles down the river there is a
Dyak house, and the inhabitants saw a large
Orang feeding on the young shoots of a palm
by the river side. On being alarmed he re-
treated towards the jungle, which was close
by, and a number of the men, armed with
spears and choppers, ran out to intercept
him. The man who was in front tried to
run his spear through the animal's body, but
the Orang seized it in his hands, and in an
instant got hold of the man's arm, which he
seized in his mouth, making his teeth meet in
the flesh above the elbow, which he tore and
lacerated in a dreadful manner. Had not the
others been close behind, the man would have
been more seriously injured, if not killed, as
C с
18
MAN AND APES.
he was quite powerless; but they soon de-
stroyed the creature with their spears and chop-
pers. The man remained ill for a long time
and never fully recovered the use of his arm."
The Gibbons (or long-armed apes) from the
genus Hylobates, containing several distinct
species, the largest and most interesting of
which is called the Siamang (Fig. 4).
In external appearance the Gibbons more
nearly resemble the Orang than the African
Troglodytes, on account of the length of the
arms, which is even greater than in Simia.
They are, however, much more active in their
habits, though generally gentle in disposition.
The power of voice possessed by some kinds
is remarkable. The Gibbons, like the two
preceding genera, have no vestige of a tail.
The various species of Gibbons are spread
over the South Eastern portion of the con-
tinent of Asia, and in the Indian Archipelago
-as Borneo, Sumatra, and Java. They are
all remarkable for their wonderful agility,
swinging themselves for prodigious distances
WACK
'07
Pinarette
FIG. 3.-THE ADULT MALE ORANG.
Jes
100000 در بر میر
Ai
C 2
Z
FIG. 4.-THE SIAMANG GIBBON (Hylobates).
Sia Chnun
JJACKSON
JAVNEGA
FIG. 5.-THE WHITE-HANDED OR LAR GIBBON.
FIG. 6. THE SILVERY GIBBON OR WOUWOU.
PO •*
FIG. 7.-THE ENTELLUS MONKEY (Semnopithecus).
A
Fig 8.—THE BLACK-CRESTED Monkey.
AMANI
ہم
FIG. 9.-THE MOOR MONKEY.
MAN AND APES.
27
3
from bough to bough with great rapidity by
means of their enormously long arms, which
reach down to the ankle-joint when the body
is erect.
The Siamang inhabits Sumatra, and goes
about in troops, which morning and evening
make the woods re-echo with their sonorous
cries.
The white-handed or Lar Gibbon (Fig. 5)
comes from Malacca and Siam. It was
described and figured by Buffon.
The Silvery Gibbon, or Wouwou of Camper
(Fig. 6) is an inhabitant of Java.
The Gibbons differ from the higher Simiince
in that they have the small pads of naked
callous skin upon which the body rests when
in a sitting attitude. These naked spaces are
called ischial* callosities.
The second sub-family embraces a num-
ber of large long-tailed species of monkeys,
* So called because they cover the lower part of that
portion of the haunch-bone which is called the ischium.
(Fig. 51, a 7).
28
MAN AND APES.
grouped into two genera. The first of these
Semnopithecus — of which the Entellus (or
Sacred Monkey of the Hindoos) may serve as
an example is entirely confined to Southern
Asia (Fig. 7). The Semnopitheci have a small
thumb on each hand, and are provided with
ischial callosities. The arms are shorter than
the legs, and their progression on the ground
is quadrupedal. They are less active than
the Gibbons or most other old-world apes.
Gentle when young, they become morose with
age.
The largest species is the singular Kahau or
Probosis Monkey, an ape of Borneo (Figs. 58
and 59, page 153). The black-crested and Moor
monkeys (Figs. 8 and 9) have soft glossy fur.
The animals of this genus are rarely seen
in menageries. There are numerous species
of a geographical distribution similar to that
of the long-armed apes.
The other genus, Colobus (remarkable for the
absence of the thumb), is as exclusively African.
The Celobi are like the Semnopitheci in form
FIG. 10.—THE WHITE-THIGHED MONKEY (Colobus).
FIG. 11.-TEMMINCK'S COLOBUS.
!!!!
Fig. 12.—THE MONA MONKEY (Cercopithecus).
NANON
FIG. 13.-THE GREEN MONKEY.
}
10
MAN AND APES.
33
and habit, but their hands (or forepaws) are
destitute of thumbs, or have them only in a
quite rudimentary condition.
Many of the species are decorated with
beautiful fur, so that their skins are an article
of commerce, and are often made to cover
ladies' muffs. There are various species of
Colobi.
Temminck's Colobus (Fig. 11) inhabits
Sierra Leone. The White-thighed Colobus
(Fig. 10), a most beautiful animal, is from.
the banks of the Gambia.
The third sub-family (Cynopithecina) con-
tains three genera, namely, Cercopithecus,
Macacus, and Cynocephalus. The first of these,
Cercopithecus, is made up of smaller, long-
tailed African monkeys, some of which are
very common in our menageries; as are
also species of the second and Asiatic genus
Macacus, in which the length of the tail is
different in different kinds. Some of the
Cercopitheci are very attractive little beasts,
and the females and young are often kept as
C
Ꭰ
34
MAN AND APES.
pets. Such are especially (Fig. 14) the
Diana Monkey (so called from its white-
crescentic band above the forehead) and
the White-nosed Monkey (Fig. 15). Both are
inhabitants of the warmer parts of Western
Africa.
The Mona Monkey (Fig. 12) is remarkable
for its brilliant coloration, its head being
yellowish-olive with a black stripe on the
forehead, and yellowish whiskers, and a purple
face. The back is chestnut brown, and there
is a white spot on each side near the root
of the tail, which is black.
The Green Monkey (Fig. 13), from the
Cape de Verd Islands, is one of the commonest
and best known species of the genus.
The White-eyelid Monkeys (Fig. 16) differ
in some small characters from the other
Cercopitheci, so that they have been by some
authors placed in a distinct genus. They are
also inhabitants of Western Africa.
All the Cercopitheci have thumbs pretty well
developed; they have also ischial callosities and
ی
FIG. 14.-THE DIANA MONKEY.
ABONA
FIG. 15.-THE WHITE-NOSED MONKEY.
• JACKSON
D 2
FIG. 16.-A WHITE-EYELID MONKEY.
JACKSO
FIG. 17.—THE TOQUE (Macacus).
Grutl
Viv
ART
FIG. 18.-THE RHESUS MONKEY.
GREEN
FIG. 19.-THE WANDEROO.
MAN AND APES.
41
"cheek-pouches." These pouches are placed
one on each side of the mouth, and the
animals make use of them as pockets wherein
to stow away food for subsequent consump-
tion.
The Macaci, or Macaques, are not found in
Africa, but they extend farther north than
any other monkeys. As it is, two species of
this genus (M. Speciosus and M. Inuus) are
respectively found in Japan and at Gibraltar.
The Gibraltar ape is pretty closely resembled
by an Indian Monkey-the Rhesus—which
swarms in many parts of Hindostan (Fig. 18).
Some Macaci, as e.g., the Toque (Fig. 17),
have a sort of cap of more or less elongated
radiating hairs upon their head. The Wan-
deroo (Fig. 19) has the face encircled by
a kind of mane of very long hairs, giving
this ape a very conspicuous and distinctive
appearance.
All the Macaques have thumbs, cheek-
pouches, and large ischial callosities. They
are generally less gentle and docile than the
42
MAN AND APES.
Cercopitheci, and approximate in disposition,
as also in appearance, to the next group.
The third genus, Cynocephalus, contains the
great and brutal Baboons, which are entirely
confined to Africa and that part of Asia which
is zoologically African—namely, Arabia.
From amongst the species of the genus may
be mentioned the Chacma of South Africa and
the Drill and Mandrill of Western Africa.
The Chacma (Fig. 20) is remarkable for the
elongation of its muzzle. It is a powerful
brute, frequenting rocks and living in troops.
Its food is mainly vegetables, but it will also
eat eggs, and large insects, and scorpions, which
it is said to deprive of their sting by a rapid
and dexterous pinch.
The Drill (Fig. 22) is a large beast with a
black face. The Mandrill (Fig. 21) is one of
the largest of the apes, exceeding the Chim-
panzee in bulk. It is remarkable for the
brilliant coloration of the face, the cheeks
being brilliant blue, the nose vermilion, and
the beard golden yellow.
FIG. 20.—THE CHACMA BABOON (Cynocephalus).
FIG. 21.-THE MANDRILL.
Jin
bea… Vi
Fig. 22.-THE DRILL.
PLOTE
Fig. 23. THE COAITA (Ateles).
25 Ft.
FIG. 24.-THE CHAMECK SPIDER MONKEY.
FIG. 25.-THE BROWN SAPAJOU OR CAPUCHIN MONKEY
(Cebus).
MAN AND APES.
49
All the Baboons have thumbs and cheek-
pouches, and their ischial callosities are very
large and conspicuous, being sometimes bril-
liantly coloured.
The second family of apes, the Cebidae, or
monkeys of the New World, form a very
distinct group from the Simiada, and a little
experience readily enables an observer to pro-
nounce at a glance that a given ape belongs
to the New World without waiting to ex-
amine its distinctive characters. They range
throughout the Continent of Tropical America,
though their headquarters are the forests of
Brazil. Strange to say they are absent from
the West Indian islands.
C
All the Cebidae are devoid of ischial cal-
losities and cheek pouches. None have the
prominent muzzles of the African baboons,
and none attain to so great a bulk as do these
latter.
More generally (and for the most part
almost exclusively) arboreal than are the apes
of the New World, many of the Cebidae are
E
50
MAN AND APES.
furnished with a prehensile tail, which serves
as an important aid in climbing, and is a
structure quite absent throughout the Simiada.
The apes of the New World also differ in
having an extra grinding tooth on each side
of each jaw, and in the fact that their thumbs
are never opposable like those of the Simiada
and of Man, but bend almost in the same
plane with the fingers. Also the septum
between the nostrils is broad instead of narrow.
The Cebidae are subdivisible into five smaller
groups or sub-families:-1. The Cebince;
2. Mycetince; 3. Pitheciince; 4. Nyctipithecince;
and 5. Hapalince.
The sub-family Cebince contain the genera
Ateles and Cebus.
The Spider Monkeys Ateles are, as their
name implies, long-limbed and slender, but
their hands are as thumbless as are those of
the African apes before noticed.
Their long tails are strongly prehensile and
naked beneath towards the tip, for more secure
prehension. So powerful is their grasp that
une www
Dejanas) 159
FIG. 26.-THE YELLOW-BREASTED SAPAJOU (Cebus).
E 2
GULP
FIG. 27.-THE RED HOWLING MONKEY (Mycetes).
MAN AND APES.
55
the whole body can be easily sustained hanging
by the tail only. It even serves as a fifth
hand, grasping and bringing in objects other-
wise out of reach,
The Spider Monkeys are very gentle in
disposition, and seem by this, by their long
limbs and great agility, to represent, as it
were, in the New World the Gibbons of the
Eastern Hemisphere.
There are various species of Spider Monkeys.
Amongst them may be mentioned the Coaita
(Fig. 23), which is destitute of every external
trace of a thumb; and the Chameck (Fig. 24),
in which each thumb is represented by a
minute, nailless tubercle.
The commonest American monkeys are the
Sapajous (Cebus), which are those generally
exhibited for their tricks by itinerant Italians.
They have long tails curled at the end, but
not naked beneath, nor capable of grasping
with the power possessed by the tails of the
Spider Monkeys.
There are numerous races of Sapajous, but
56
MAN AND APES.
the individuals vary so remarkably that the
number of species has been as yet by no
means satisfactorily determined.
The common brown Sapajou, or Capuchin
(Fig. 25), and the yellow-breasted kind (Fig.
26) may be mentioned as examples.
The Sapajous make good pets, being both
lively and gentle; their voice, moreover, is
attractive, having a gentle and pleasing flute-
like sound.
The Howling Monkeys (Mycetes) are slug-
gish and, apparently, stupid animals. They
have long and very prehensile tails (Fig. 27);
but, as their name implies, it is their power of
voice which particularly distinguishes them.
They have longish thumbs, and their muzzles
are more produced than are those of any other
of the Cebidae; so that they may be considered,
as it were, to be the Baboons of the New
World, as the Spider Monkeys are its Gib-
bons.
The Howlers are strictly arboreal in their
habits, and especially frequent the forests of
FIG. 28.-THE COUXIO (Pithecia).
Au
MODE -
だい
FIG. 29.—A SHORT-TAILED SAKI (Brachyurus).
MAN AND APES.
59
Brazil. Their tail is naked beneath towards
its tip, as in the genus Ateles.
The second sub-family of American mon-
keys, the Pitheciina or Sakis, is interesting
from peculiarities in the hairy clothing. The
tail may be long or short, but is never pre-
hensile.
There are two genera the long-tailed
species, forming the genus Pithecia; while
the short-tailed species are grouped under the
generic designation Brachyurus.
One of the species, the Couxio (Fig. 28), is
furnished with a magnificent beard; and from
its blackness, it has received the specific ap-
pellation P. Satanas.
A
Another species, the Yarké, has the head, in
the female sex, adorned with elongated hair.
The Brachyuri are the only American apes
with short tails (Fig. 29), and they are the least
arboreal, frequenting bushes rather than trees.
They are very timid creatures, and gentle and
rather slow in their movements. It is but very
rarely that any of the Pitheciina have been
60
MAN AND APES.
brought alive to Europe. They have the
front teeth of the lower jaw (lower incisors)
much inclined instead of standing up vertically,
as in the other apes and in man.
The little Squirrel Monkey (Chrysothrix) —
Frontispiece, Fig. 3-is a singularly attractive
and beautiful little animal. Two allied genera
are called respectively Callithrix and Nycti-
pithecus.
These three genera constitute the sub-family
Nyctipithecina. None of them have prehensile
tails. The typical form Nyctipithecus, or the
Douroucouli, is nocturnal in its habits.
The Squirrel Monkey, or Saimiri, appears
to eat insects more readily and greedily than
vegetable food.
The last sub-family of American monkeys
comprises the delicate little Marmosets (Fig.
30), or Ouistitis (Hapale), which differ notably
from all the other apes, whether of the Old
or New World; so that some authors have
purposed to raise them to the rank of a distinct
family.
(1
76,
Funmyy
FIG. 30.-A MARMOSET (Hapale).
ات
FIG. 31.-THE MARIKINA OR SILKY MONKEY.
MAN AND APES.
63
They have, like the other American
monkeys, the extra grinding tooth on each
side of each jaw, but at the same time the
hindermost grinder, present both in all the
other apes and in man, here disappears.
The great toe is exceedingly small, and
each of the five fingers is furnished with long,
pointed, and curved claws, while the inner-
most of the five fingers (the thumb) is not at
all opposable to the others.
The tail is not prehensile, but long,
and furnished with more or less elongated
hairs.
The Marmosets are about the size of
Squirrels, or smaller. They are, like Squirrels,
active in their motions, and arboreal, living
in small troops. They eat fruit and insects,
and are very delicate in constitution; so that,
though often brought to this country, they
generally live but a short time. Nevertheless,
they breed here occasionally, and bring forth
as many as three at a birth; while all the
other apes habitually bring forth but one.
64
MAN AND APES.
There are numerous species of Marmosets.
Several kinds have a long tuft of hair on each
side of the head.
or
One beautiful species, the Marikina
Silky Monkey (Fig. 31), has the fur of golden
yellow.
The Ouistitis has little intelligence, and
cannot, it appears, be taught the tricks easily
learned by other apes.
Passing now to the second sub-order of the
Primates, i.e., to the Lemuroids, or Half-apes,
we find a geographical distribution of much
interest.
The great bulk of the sub-order is exclusively
confined to the Island of Madagascar, three
genera only being found on the continent of
Africa, and not elsewhere, and three others
in South Eastern Asia only. In fact, the
Lemuroids have a distribution on the earth's
surface similar to that of the woolly-haired
races of men.
All the Half-apes differ strikingly from the
in external appearance, but there is much
apes
FIG. 32.-SKULL OF A YOUNG APE (Cercopithecus).
Demo F
FIG. 33.—SKULL OF A HALF APE (Lemur).
F
Eloy
FIG. 34.—THE DIADEM LEMUR (Indris).
F 2
MAN AND APES.
69
difference between the different kinds of half-
apes
themselves.
The difference in external appearance be-
tween the apes and half-apes is accompanied
by a variety of important anatomical distinc-
tions.*
The sub-order Lemuroidea is divided into
three families, as in the Anthropoidea; but
while it is the highest family of the higher
sub-order, namely, the family Hominida,
which contains but a single genus, but one
genus is found in the two lower orders of
Lemuroidea, namely, in the Cheiromyida and
Tarsiida, while the family Lemuridæ contains
the bulk of the sub-order.
All the Lemuroids eat vegetable food or
insects, and all are nocturnal in their habits.
None possess a prehensile tail, cheek-pouches,
or ischial callosities, and almost always the
muzzle is much more produced than in most
apes (Fig. 33).
* For details see 'Pro. Zool. Soc.' 1873, May 20th,
"On the Zoological Rank of the Lemuroidea."
70
MAN AND APES.
i
The family Lemurida is again divisible
into four sub-families: (1) the Indrisince;
(2) the Lemurina; (3) the Nycticebine; and
(4) the Galagininæ.
The first sub-family contains various species,
all exclusively confined to the island of
Madagascar. They are the largest animals of
the Lemuroid sub-order. One species is the
short-tailed Indris (Fig. 35); another is the
Diadem Lemur (Fig. 34), which has a long
tail; and a third (to which reference will
hereafter occasionally be made) is the Woolly
Lemur.
Though some of the just-mentioned species.
have the word "Lemur
"Lemur" as part of their
name, the true Lemurs (Lemur), which are
the typical Lemuroids, are members of the
second sub-family, the Lemurince.
They have woolly fur, long tails, and
pointed fox-like muzzles.
There are numerous species, which present
much variety in colouration and arrangement
of the fur. As examples, may be mentioned
بر رسمی بهرامی
FIG. 35.-THE SHORT-TAILED INDRI.
More
FIG. 36. THE VARI (Lemur).
FIG. 37.-THE WHITE-FRONTED LEMUR.
W
از--
لنده
FIG. 38. THE SLOW LEMUR (Nycticebus).
MAN AND APES.
75
the ruffed Lemur, or Vari (Fig. 36), and the
white-fronted Lemur (Fig. 37).
Lemurs are very common animals in mena-
geries, and live fairly in confinement. They
make agreeable pets, though their powerful
eye-teeth render an accidental bite no slight
infliction.
They are exclusively natives of Madagascar,
as also are the other two genera of this sub-
family, Hapalemur and Lepilemur—the last-
mentioned genus being the only one of the
three which is furnished with a tail shorter
than the body.
The species belonging to the third sub-family
constitute a curious group of slow-paced, tail-
less, or short-tailed Lemuroids (Nycticebince),
and contains two African and two Asiatic
genera. The African genera are the Potto
(Perodicticus), and the Angwántibo (Arctocebus)
(see Frontispiece, Figs. 4 and 5). The Asiatic
genera are the Slender Lemur (Loris) (Fig. 39)
and the Slow Lemur (Nycticebus) (Fig 38).
In all these four genera the forefinger of
76
MAN AND APES.
each hand is short, but in the Potto it is
reduced to a minute rudiment, so that each
hand is but three-fingered.
All possess a very tenacious grasp, and by
a special arrangement of the muscles and
tendons the mere stretching of the leg causes
the toes to flex and embrace tightly any
object placed within their grasp. In this
way the dead body may be securely suspended
by the weight of the trunk extending the legs.
These animals devour not only eggs and
insects, but also birds, in addition to fruit.
The fourth sub-family (Galaginince) con-
tains two genera-one an exclusively Mada-
gascar type, the other as exclusively peculiar
to the continent of Africa.
Both have the ankle elongated in a re-
markable degree and in a peculiar manner,
described below (Fig. 53) with the rest of the
skeleton.
The Madagascar genus is called Cheiro-
galeus.
The other genus of the sub-family is called
JONA
Mizra
dayths Ketament
دور الامال کیا
+
ZOO
FIG. 39.—THE SLENDER LEMUR (Loris).
Civi
• Baby
M
FIG. 40.-THE MAHOLI GALAGO (Galago).
MAN AND APES.
81
Galago (Fig. 40). It is a singular and beautiful
genus, widely distributed over the continent of
Africa, and containing many species. They
have, as just remarked, feet of very peculiar
construction, are very active in their move-
ments, and great leapers.
Another genus of Half-apes is so excep-
tional as to form a family by itself (Tarsiida).
It is the Tarsier (Tarsius). These little
animals inhabit the Islands of Celebes and
Borneo, and have a foot of the Galago type,
but still more exaggerated (Frontispiece,
Fig. 6).
The last genus of the sub-order, which also
ranks as a family called Cheiro-myidæ, is the
Aye-Aye (Cheiromys). This very remarkable
animal (Frontispiece, Fig. 7) was discovered
by Sonnerat in Madagascar, in 1780, and
was never again seen till 1844, when a
specimen was forwarded to Paris. It is now
represented in our national collection by two
stuffed specimens and by a skeleton; and
there is also a skeleton in the Museum of the
G
82
MAN AND APES.
Royal College of Surgeons. The Aye-Aye
is said to live on grubs which infest trees
beneath the bark. The Tarsier and the Aye-
Aye are the two animals which depart most
widely from the general type of organization
prevalent in the order Primates.
Thus it becomes evident that the position
of the Gorilla is in the African group, of
the latisternal sub-family, of the Old World
ape family, of the Anthropoid division of the
order Primates. This is the answer to the
first of the three questions proposed.
The various groups of Primates may be
tabulated as follows:-
MAN AND APES.
83
SUB-ORDER I.-ANTHROPOIDEA.
Family I.-HOMINIDA
Family II.-SIMIADÆ
Sub-family.
Family III.-CEBIDE
Sub-family.
Family IV.-LEMURIDÆ.
Sub-family.
1. Simiina
Family V.-TARSIIDÆ
Family VI.-CHEIROMYIDE
Troglodytes.
Simia.
Hylobates.
2. Semopithecina Semnopithecus.
Colobus.
Cercopithecus.
3. Cynopithecina Macacus.
1. Cebince.
2. Mycitince
3. Pitheciina .
(Indrisince.
Homo.
SUB-ORDER II.-LEMUROIDEA.
Mycetes.
Pithecia.
Brachyurus.
Callithrix.
4. Nyctipithecina Chrysothrix.
(Nyctipithecus.
Hapale.
5. Hapalince
Lemurince.
Nycticebinc
Galagininc
Cynocephalus.
(Ateles.
Cebus.
Indris.
Lemur.
Hapalemur.
Lepilemur.
(Nycticebus.
Loris.
Perodicticus.
Arctocebus.
JCheirogaleus.
Galago.
Tarsius.
Cheiromys.
G 2
84
PART II.
THE second and more interesting question
now follows: "What are the degrees of re-
semblance to man which the various kinds of
apes exhibit ? "
It may be well to begin with what is most
manifest and external-the hair. All the
apes and all the Half-apes agree together,
and differ from man in having the body almost
entirely clothed with copious hair, and es-
pecially in never having the back naked.
The postero-inferior part of the body is
indeed conspicuously naked, and the skin
there thickened, in the Baboons and long-
tailed monkeys of the Old World. But the
presence of such ischial callosities can hardly
·
MAN AND APES.
85
be approximation to the nakedness of man,
since both in Simia and in Troglodytes they
are wanting, while in Hylobates they are
exceedingly small. On the other hand, the
absence of these dermal thickenings in the
Orang, Chimpanzee, and Gorilla is no
especial mark of affinity to man, since they
are equally absent in all the American apes
and in all the Lemuroids.
One of the most grotesque conceptions
suggested by Mr. Darwin is that the naked-
ness of man, and especially of woman, has been
produced by the gradual extension over the
body (through the persistent choice of more
and more hairless spouses) of an incipient local
nakedness like that now existing in certain
apes. No facts known to the author afford
the slightest basis for this bizarre hypothesis.
*
No single ape or Lemuroid has so exclusive
and preponderating a development of hair on
the head and face as exists in most men. As
to the head, long hair thereon is not a
* See "Descent of Man,” vol. ii. p. 377.
86
MAN AND APES.
character found in the highest apes, but
rather in the Semnopitheci, and in forms
approaching the Baboons. As to the face, a
beard and copious whiskers are not un-
known amongst apes.
The male Orang
(Fig. 3) has a beard, and certain Cercopitheci
(e.g., the Diana Monkey, Fig. 14) have long
hair on the cheeks and chin. Nevertheless,
it is not in the highest apes, nor even in the
higher family, that we find a luxuriance in
this respect like what we may often find in
man. We must
We must go for such luxuriance to the
New World apes-to the Sakis (see Fig. 28),
which are certainly not the highest forms
even of their own family, and which indeed
show a certain resemblance (e. g., in their
teeth) to the Lemuriod sub-order.
The opposed directions of the hair on the
arm and forearm respectively (the apices
converging to the elbow) is the same in most
latisternal apes as in man. Nevertheless, in
at least one such ape (H. agilis) the hair of
the whole limb is directed uniformly towards
MAN AND APES.
87
the hand, as in most lower species. Yet we
find it in some of the Cebido as in man.
Passing to the solid structures which the
hair clothes, we come to one of the most
characteristic peculiarities of the human body.
The whole of the apes and the whole of
the Half-apes agree together, and differ from
man in having the great toe, or (as it is called
in anatomy) the hallux, so constructed as to
be able to oppose the other toes (much as our
thumb can oppose the fingers), instead of
being parallel with the other toes, and exclu-
sively adapted for supporting the body on the
ground. The prehensile character of the
hallux is fully maintained even in those forms
which, like the Baboons, are terrestrial rather
than arboreal in their habits, and are quite
quadrupedal in their mode of progression.
It was this circumstance that led Cuvier to
give to that separate order in which he places
man alone, the name Bimana, while on the
order of apes and Lemurs he imposed the
term Quadrumana.
88
MAN AND APES.
The dispute as to whether the latter term is
or is not applicable to the apes seems rather a
dispute about words than about material
objects.
If we accept, with Professor Owen, as the
definition of the word "foot," "an extremity in
which the hallux forms the fulcrum in standing
or walking," then man alone has a pair of
feet. But, anatomically, the foot of apes
agrees far more with the foot of man than with
his hand, and similarly the ape's hand re-
sembles man's hand and differs from his foot.
Even estimated physiologically, or according
to use, the hand throughout the whole order
remains the prehensile organ par excellence,
while the predominant function of the foot,
however prehensile it be, is constantly locomo-
tive. Therefore the term Quadrumana is apt
to be misleading, since anatomically as well as
physiologically both apes and man have two
hands and a pair of feet.*
The thumb, in anatomy the pollex, shows
* See Phil. Trans.' 1867, p. 362.
$3
FIG. 41.-FOOT OF MAN AND OF THE ORANG.
MAN AND APES.
91
no similar uniformity of condition. In the
most man-like apes it is relatively much
smaller than in man, and the Lemurs are
more man-like than the apes in the develop-
ment of this member.
As we have seen, the latisternal apes are,
like man, devoid of a tail. A similar resem-
blance is, however, presented by much lower
forms, as e. g., by the ape of Gibraltar,
and even in the Slender Lemur (Loris)
(Fig. 39).
As we descend from man, when we first
encounter a tail at all, we find it at almost its
maximum of development in the whole order,
for such is its condition in the Semnopithecina.
Short tails exist in the most varied forms
from Macacus to Arctocebus; but a prehensile
tail is found nowhere in the order Primates,
save amongst the genera of the American
continent.
The commoner monkeys of the Old World
(the Cynopithecina) have the cheeks peculiarly
distensible, serving as pockets. In so far as
92
MAN AND APES.
the higher apes resemble man in the absence
of this condition, they share that resemblance
with all the lower forms of the order, since no
cheek-pouches exist in the Cebidae or in
the Lemuroidea,
any of
Passing now to internal anatomy, it will be
well to dwell with care on the characters
presented by the skeleton. Without a patient
consideration of many details, it will be im-
possible to arrive at any sure result as to the
question under consideration, or as to that
which is to follow. Hasty conclusions, de-
rived from a few characters only, will be cer-
tain to mislead us in any investigation of the
teaching of nature with respect to the affinities.
of organised beings.
The back-bone of man exhibits a beautiful
sigmoid curvature, and is strongly convex in
front in the lumbar region. Now it is not
in the latisternal apes, but in some of the
Baboons, that we meet with the nearest re-
semblance to man in this particular.
The lumbar region of the back-bone ex-
そ
}
Ail
ULA
נר
་་་་
mim
7
1
a
2.
}
FIG. 42.-SKELETON OF THE TRUNK OF MAN.
a b, the seven neck bones, or cervicle vertebræ; c d, the five bones
of the loins, or lumbar vertebræ; g, the sacrum; h, the hip-bone
or ilium; i, the ischium; k, the pubis; 1, the thigh socket or
acetobulum.
MAN AND APES.
95
hibits in most apes certain bony prominences,
which are rudimentary in man. The three
highest genera resemble man in this respect,
but the same resemblance is found in the
Slender Lemur (Loris) and in closely allied
forms.
The sacrum of man (Fig. 51, B) is also
nearly as much resembled (size not being con-
sidered) by that of Loris as by those of the
highest apes. Again, in the angle which this
bone forms with the lumbar part of the back-
bone, man is most resembled, not by the
highest apes, but by some Baboons. The
same may be said respecting the concavity
of the anterior surface of the sacrum; and of
the three highest genera it is not the Gorilla
and Chimpanzee which resemble man most
nearly, but the Orang.
The hinder aspect of the back-bone exhibits
-
* Termed "Metapophyses" and "Anapophyses." For
details as to these see 'Pro. Zool. Soc.' 1854, pp.
571-576.
99
† The "
sacrum is the large and solid piece of the
back-bone to which the haunch-bones are attached.
96
MAN AND APES.
a number of prominences termed spinous
processes. These, in most apes, are differently
directed towards the two ends of the series,
so that they tend to converge towards a single
point in the back. They do not do so in man.
and the latisternal apes, but neither do they
in Loris and its allies (Nycticebinae). In
that the breast-bone, or sternum, is relatively
short, and composed but of two bones, man
agrees not so much with Troglodytes and Simia
as with the Gibbons; and in the Siamang the
sternum is even shorter and broader relatively
than in man.
The Orang exhibits a singular peculiarity in
that the breast-bone long remains made up of
ossifications arranged in pairs, side by side,
successively (Fig. 49).
The normal number of ribs in the Gorilla
and Chimpanzee is thirteen pairs; in the
Orang and some Gibbons it is twelve, as in
man.
In the Orang and Gibbons there are, as in
man, five lumbar vertebra; in the Gorilla
MAN AND APES.
97
and Chimpanzee there are but four, and some-
times only three.
The bones of the neck (cervical vertebræ) in
man have but short spinous processes, while in
the Orang and Gorilla these are enormously
elongated. It has been proposed to account
for this latter condition by the great weight
of the head and jaws in these apes. The little
group Nycticebinae, however, presents us with
a parallel diversity, though the head and jaws
are about equally developed in all of them.
These spines are quite short in Loris and
Nycticebus, while they are prodigiously long
in Perodicticus and Arctocebus.
The skull of man presents in the frontal
region an elevated and rounded contour, very
different from what we find in the apes
generally, and notably in the higher family
of them. It is in the American forms-
especially in Callithrix and Pithecia—that we
find the greatest resemblance to man in this
respect. It is in the Gorilla that great bony
crests (for muscular attachment)-like those
Η
98
MAN AND APES.
of a carnivorous animal-attain their maxi-
mum of development. Frontispiece, Fig. 2.
The relation of the face to the brain-case is
shown by what is called the cranio-facial
angle. This angle is estimated by comparing
the direction of a line drawn parallel to the
base of the skull with another line drawn from
the front end of that base to the middle of the
lower margin of the upper jaw. Stress has been
laid on the difference existing between man
and the Gorilla as to this angle. But it does
not appear to be a really important character,
since much difference exists with regard to
this character in forms admitted by all to be
closely related, such as the two Baboons-the
Mandrill and the Chacma.
There is one small cranial character, how-
ever, in which the Gorilla approaches man
more nearly than does any other Primate.
This is the existence of a certain ridge
(termed vaginal) on the under surface of the
bone which encloses the internal ear. An-
other process of the same bone (called
!
FIG. 43. - SKULL OF MAN.
Why pm w
////////
ܔ
Way.
him mes
FIG. 44.-SKULL OF CHIMPANZEE.
H 2
C
7
7
Wh
FIG. 45. SKULL OF ORANG.
1.
MAN AND APES.
103
styloid) is, however, sometimes developed more
in accordance with man in one of the Ba-
boons than in any other Primate; while of
the latisternal apes it is not the Gorilla, but
the Orang, which in this matter is the most
human.
The Gibbons are more human than the
Orang, Chimpanzee, or Gorilla as to the
preponderance of the brain-case of the skull
over the bony face. But the smaller Ame-
rican monkeys exceed the Gibbons in this
respect, while the Squirrel Monkey exceeds
even man himself.
A striking feature in the human skull is the
prominence of the inferior margin of the
lower jaw in front; i.e., the presence of a
"chin." The feature is quite wanting in the
Gorilla, as also in the Orang and Chimpanzee.
A more or less developed "chin," however,
exists in the Siamang, although no other
species of Gibbons, and indeed no other ape or
Lemuroid, shows us a similar condition.
Another marked character of man's skull is
104
MAN AND APES.
the projection and transverse convexity of the
bones of the nose. This convexity is quite
absent in the Chimpanzee and in most Gib-
bons. In the Orang these bones are exceed-
ingly small and flat, often even uniting into
one bone, or with the adjoining jaw-bones, if
indeed they are not altogether absent.
man.
In the Gorilla, on the other hand, they are
slightly convex transversely at their upper
part, so that here we seem to have evidence
of the predominant affinity of the Gorilla to
Further examination, however, shows
that this character can have no such meaning,
since a still more decided convexity is found
to exist in some Semnopitheci, and even in the
lowest Baboons. Moreover, in these Baboons
the nasal bones only become convex towards
maturity, being at first flat. This character
therefore can hardly have been at one time a
general one, now preserved only in a few
scattered forms.
The relative length of the arm and hand,
when compared with that of the spine, is very
MAN AND APES.
105
different in all the latisternal apes from what
exists in man. In this respect the Gorilla is
less like man than is the Chimpanzee, though
both are less unlike him than are the Orang
and Gibbons. In the Gibbons the arm and
hand attain about twice the relative length
attained in us.
The analogous proportions of the leg and
foot show a near agreement between the
Orang and man. While the Gibbons and
Spider Monkeys have relatively longer legs
than we have, the Gorilla and Chimpanzee
have much shorter ones. If the foot be ex-
cluded from the calculation, then the Orang
differs the most from man, while the Gibbons
exhibit a remarkable conformity to him.
In shape the blade-bone of the Gorilla is
singularly like that of man, but that of its
congener, the Chimpanzee, differs more from
man than does that of the Orang.
The collar-bone, in both the Chimpanzee
and Gorilla, is much shorter when compared
with the blade-bone than it is in man. In the
106
MAN AND APES.
Gibbons, however, it is still larger than in
him; while in the Orang its relative length
is much as in man.
Both the bone of the upper arm (humerus)
and the bones of the fore-arm (Radius and
Ulna) in the Chimpanzee, when compared in
length with the spine, more resemble the
same bones in man than do those of any other
latisternal ape. In the length of the hand, so
estimated, the Gorilla is the most human, and
it is so in the relative length of the fore-arm
bones to the humerus.
Much has been said of late as to a certain
perforation (Supra condyloid foramen) which
has been found in a certain number of ancient
human skeletons. Some have supposed this
circumstance to indicate a transition in human
structure from that of the higher apes. In
fact, however, it is not in the Gorilla, nor in
any of the latisternal apes, nor even in any of
the apes
of the Old World, that we find such
a perforation normally developed. Such a con-
dition is not met with till we descend to the
2
WALA
3
+
FIG. 46.-BLADE-BONE OF MAN WITH PARTS OF HUMERUS
AND COLLAR-bone,
1, 2, and 3, its three borders; 4 and 5, its spine and acromicon
process; 6 and 7, supra and infra-spinous fossæ ; 8, socket for 9, head
of humerus.
107
4
A
B
2
3
6
1
5
с
2
D
4
FIG. 47.-BONES OF MAN'S ARM AND HAND.
A. Humerus: 4, shaft; 6, internal condyle; 7 and 8, surface for
radius and ulna. B. Radius: 1, surface for humerus; 2, neck;
3, tubercle; 4 and 5, surface for wrist-bones; 6, shaft. C. Ulna: 1-3,
sigmoid cavity for humerus; 4, shaft; 5, styloid process. D. Bones of
the hand: 1, The eight bones of the wrist; 2-2, The five metacarpal
bones, that of the thumb supporting two other bones (phalanges),
each of the others supporting three such bones.
...
...
109
MAN AND APES.
111
lower Cebidae (from Cebus downwards), though,
with the exception of Arctocebus, it is constant
in the Half-apes.
The little bones of the wrist are in man
only eight in number, arranged in two trans-
verse series.
The bones of the upper, or proximal row,
are: (1) the scaphoides (or scaphoid bone);
(2) the lunare (or semi-lunar bone); (3) the
cuneiform (or wedge-shaped bone); and (4)
the pisiform (or pea-shaped bone).
The bones of the lower, or dictal row, are:
(1) the trapezium; (2) the trapezoides; (3)
the magnum; (4) the unciform.
The magnum is the largest bone of the
dictal series, while the unciform articulates
with and supports two metacarpals, namely,
the fourth and fifth.
The trapezium presents a saddle-shaped
surface to the first long bone (metacarpal) of
the thumb, being concave in one direction and
convex in another.
In almost all the other Primates there are
112
MAN AND APES.
nine of such ossicles, an extra bone, called the
intermedium, being interposed between the
Scaphoides, the Trapezoides, and the Magnum.
In the Gorilla and Chimpanzee there are but
eight, while the Orang and Gibbons have, like
the other monkeys, nine. It is very remark-
able that amongst the Lemuroidea we find
certain forms, namely, Indris and Lepilemur,
which agree with Homo and Troglodytes in
having but eight bones to the wrist. One of
these wrist-bones (the Pisiform) is much
smaller relatively in man and in the Orang
than in almost any other species of the order.
Strange to say, however, we find in the little
slender Lemur (Loris) an approximation in
this respect to man much beyond that ex-
hibited by the Gorilla.
The thumb, as to its relative length, taking
again the back-bone as our standard of com-
parison, is in the Gorilla more like that of
man than is the thumb of any other of the
Simiince. But the same degree of resemblance
to man exists in many lower forms; and in
L
With
I
ALASKES
P
T
A
[Ind
F
B
с
V
H
R
FIG. 48.-SKELETON OF MAN.
A, hallux; B, fibula; C, clavicle; F, femur; H, humerus; I, ischium;
L, hip-bone or ilium; 0, pollex; P, pubis; R, radius; T, tibia;
v, ulna.
I
113
T
F
B
U
Capt
FIG. 49.-SKELETON OF Orang.
R
L
T
A
F
B
FIG. 50.-SKELETON OF
CHIMPANZEE.
A, hallux; B, fibula; c, clavicle; F, femur; H, humerus; I, ischium;
L, hip-bone or ilium; o, pollex; 0, pollex; P, pubis; R, radius
T, tibia; U, ulna.
I 2
H
R
115
MAN AND APES.
117
the short-tailed Indris the proportion is pre-
cisely the same as in ourselves.
The very same remarks may be applied to
the index finger also.
The proportion borne by the thumb to the
longest finger of the hand in the Gorilla is
slightly more human than what we find in
any other latisternal apes. Nevertheless the
difference between these apes is trifling, and
all differ greatly from man in this proportion;
while in the slender Lemur, and in the
Marmoset, the proportion is nearly as it is in
us, although in the Marmoset the thumb is
not, as in us, opposable.
The pelvis, consisting of the two haunch-
bones and sacrum, is one of the most cha-
racteristic parts of the human skeleton, closely
connected as is its shape with the upright
posture of man's body.
In the breadth of the pelvis (Fig. 42), com-
pared with the extreme length of each haunch-
bone, man greatly exceeds every other Primate;
he is most nearly approached, however, in this
1
118
MAN AND APES.
respect, not by the Gorilla, but by some of
the Gibbons.
In the breadth of the pelvis, compared with
its extent from before backwards, man is more
nearly reached by some Baboons than by any
latisternal ape.
The haunch-bone (os innominatum) is made
up
of three bones-1, the ilium; 2, the pubis;
and 3, the ischium-which have coalesced
into one mass (Fig. 51, A).
In the length of the whole mass, compared
with that of the spine, the Gorilla, Chim-
panzee, and Orang are considerably less
human than are the Gibbons. In the re-
lative length of the crest of the ilium, how-
ever, the Orang takes precedence.
Each ischium ends below in what is called
its "tuberosity," on which the body is sup-
ported when in a sitting posture. Above
this tuberosity is a prominence called the
"spine of the ischium" (Fig. 51, ▲ 9).
The shortness of the ischia, the smallness
and the non-eversion of the tuberosities, and
1
5
a
A
7
2
13
11 c
B, Sacrum its anterior surface.
:
12
10
B
FIG. 51.-HAUNCH-BONE AND SACRUM OF MAN.
A, Haunch-bone (os innominatum): a, ilium; b, ischium; c, spine
of pubis; 1, acetobulum; 2, crest of ilium; 3, 4, 5, and 6, iliac
spinous processes; 7, tuberosity of ischium; 8, ramus of ischium;
9, spine of ischium; 10, 11, and 12, ramus of pubis; 13, obturator
foramen.
A
MAN AND APES.
121
the prolongation of the latter upwards nearly
to the spines of the ischia, are four characters
almost peculiar to man. He is most nearly
approached in these points, not by the
Gorilla, nor by any of the Simiina, but by
the Slender Lemur (Loris).
The development of the spine of the
ischium is much more human in the Orang
than either in the Chimpanzee or Gorilla.
The length of the thigh-bone (femur)
compared with that of the back-bone, is
greater in man than in any latisternal ape.
He is most nearly approached in this respect.
by the Spider Monkeys (Ateles), while in the
Gibbons it is even longer than in man.
Comparing the length of the thigh-bone
with that of the haunch-bone, we find the
short-tailed Indris to be the most human,
while Hylobates is more so than are the higher
genera of Simiinæ.
In man the relative length of the thigh-
bone to the humerus is enormously greater
than in any latisternal ape. The Lemurs
122
MAN AND APES.
approach us most nearly in this proportion,
while, as regards the slenderness of the thigh-
bone, the Gibbons agree with us much more
than do the thick thigh-boned Orang, Chim-
panzee, and Gorilla.
The "neck" of the thigh-bone (Fig. 52, A. 2)
is especially long and well defined in man and
in the latisternal apes, but the Gorilla in this
respect is the least human of the latter.
The lower end of the thigh-bone of man is
distinguished by the much greater projection
downwards of its inner part (inner condyle).
It are not, however, the Simiince, but the
Spider Monkeys, and some Baboons, which
in this character present the nearest resem-
blance to ourselves.
The length of the shin-bone, compared
with that of the back-bone, is greater in man
than in any of the Old World apes, except
the Gibbons, in which its relative length is
even a little greater than in man. Some of
the Spider Monkeys resemble him in this
more than do any other Primates.
3
5
1
с
~
.5
B
6
9
D
8
SARLA
FIG. 52.-BONES OF MAN'S LEG AND FOOT.
A, Thigh-bone or Femur: 1, its head; 2, neck; 3 and 4, trochan-
ters; 5, shaft; 6, inner condyle; 7, outer condyle; 8, surface for
tibia; 9, tuberosity above inner condyle.
B, Tibia 1, and 2, surface for femur; 4, tuberosity; 5, shaft;
6, internal malleolus; 7, horizontal surface for ankle of.
c, Fibula: 1, head; 2, distal end or external malleolus.
D, Bones of Foot: 1, astragalus; 2, calcaneum; 3, naviculare;
4, cuboides; 5, internal cuneiform bone; 6, middle cuneiform bone;
7, external cuneiform bone.
B
MAN AND APES.
125
The length of the shin-bone compared
with that of the thigh-bone is much the same
in the Gorilla and Chimpanzee as in man.
In the Gibbons it is rather longer, relatively,
and in the Orang considerably longer. In
the Slow Lemur, however, the proportion is
almost as human as in the Gorilla.
When the length of the entire foot is com-
pared with that of the back-bone, the Orang
appears at much disadvantage (as to resem-
blance to man) in comparison with all the
other latisternal apes; the Baboons, however,
excel the last-named animals in this respect.
When the length of the foot is compared
with that of the entire leg without it, the
Gibbons are seen to take precedence (as to
human likeness), not only of all the other
latisternal apes, but of all other Primates
whatever, except the Nycticebince.
If the length of the foot be compared with
that of the shin-bone, the Gibbons come
absolutely to the front rank of the whole
order, while the Orang is seen to be, in this
126
MAN AND APES.
respect, the most inhuman of all Primates.
The proportion as to length borne by the foot
to the hand is more human in the short-tailed
Indris than in any other Primate; while, of
the latisternal apes, the Gibbons are the least
human, and the Orang the most so; the last
named, however, not being nearly so human
as is the short-tailed Indris.
The ankle-bones form what is called the
tarsus, and are seven in number, namely,
the astragalus, calcaneum, cuboides, naviculare,
and three cuneiform bones.
None of them can ordinarily be called
"long bones." The astragalus receives the
weight of the trunk from the shin-bone; the
calcaneum (or os calcis) forms the prominence
of the heel.
In the genera Galago, Cheirogaleus, and espe-
cially in Tarsius, the os calcis and naviculare
are so extraordinarily produced as to become
"long bones"-thus adding another segment
to the limb.
In man the ankle-bones form a larger
4
2
7
A
6
1
5
3
4.
B
2*
7:
1
3
5
FIG. 53.—A, TARSUS OF CHIEROGALEUS. B, TARSUS OF
GALAGO.
1, Astragalus; 2, calcaneum; 3, naviculare; 4, cuboides; 5, 6, 7,
cuneiform bones.
MAN AND APES.
129
proportion of the entire foot than in any other
Primates except in the Galaginince. As to this
point the Gorilla and Chimpanzee are con-
siderably more human than are the Gibbons
and Orang. In the man-like slenderness of
the ankle, however, some Gibbons much more
approximate to man than do the other latis-
ternal apes.
In the relative length of the great toe (hal-
lux), compared with that of the back-bone,
man is very closely approximated by the
Gorilla, while the Orang falls off greatly.
In this pre-eminence, however, the Gorilla
is about equalled by some of the Sakis of
America.
In the proportional length of the longest
toe to the back-bone, man is most nearly
approached by the Gorilla and Chimpanzee
amongst the latisternal apes. He is, however,
much more nearly approached by the Lemurs.
In man, the great toe much more nearly
equals the longest toe in length than in any
other Primate. The Chimpanzee is the most
K
4
130
MAN AND APES.
human in this matter, but the short-tailed
Indris is almost as much so, and excels the
Gorilla and all other latisternal apes. The
great toe of the Orang differs from that of
every other Primate in that the terminal
joint is often absent.
In the proportion borne in length by the
great toe to the entire foot, man is most
closely resembled by the Gibbons and Chim-
panzee, while the Orang is the least human
of all Primates. In the diminutive develop-
ment of the hallux, as compared with the
pollex, the Orang is even more exceptional,
though an approximation to this is found in
the lowest of apes-the Marmosets. In the
proportion borne by the hallux to the pollex,
man and the Gorilla agree; then comes the
Chimpanzee; then the Gibbons, and, last of
all, the Orang. The Little Squirrel Monkey,
however, is almost as human as the Gorilla
in this proportion.
Such are the main affinities towards man's
structure exhibited by the different kinds of
MAN AND APES.
131
the higher apes as regards the skeleton.
They show that the various species approxi-
mate to man, not only in different degrees,
but also in different modes. The Orang, cer-
tainly, diverges more, as regards the skeleton,
from man, than does any other latisternal
ape.
Thus it has the shortest leg, compared with
the arm, of all Primates (hand and foot not
being counted), while man has the longest.
It has the absolutely longest hand and the
shortest thumb, as compared with the fore-
finger; and it has the shortest thigh-bone,
compared with the upper arm-bone, of all
Primates. The pit for the ligamentum teres*
is almost constantly absent, while in man,
Gibbons, and the Chimpanzee it is as con-
stantly present. The Gorilla alone sometimes
shares with the Orang the condition of having
no such pit.
*This is a ligament which holds the thigh-bone in its
place, passing as it does, like a round cord, from the head
of the thigh-bone to the inside of the socket of the
haunch-bone (acetabulum), into which the thigh-bone fits.
K 2
132
MAN AND APES.
The Orang has the shortest shin-bone,
compared with the upper arm-bone, and the
longest foot, compared with the leg, in the
whole order. It has the relatively shortest.
and most imperfect hallux of any Primate;
while in no other ape or Half-ape does the
length of the second toe so closely approach
that of the forefinger of the same individual.
Estimated by the skeleton only, the Orang
cannot be said to approximate to man in any
supreme degree, although, as may be remem-
bered, several points have been mentioned
in which it is more human than in any other
latisternal ape.
The Gorilla and Chimpanzee have been
seen to show many approximations to man as
regards the skeleton. In some respects one
species has been found to be the more man-
like; in other points the other species has
been so found.
;
We have found that the Gibbons, one or
other of them, exhibit various skeletal cha-
racters more human than those presented by
MAN AND APES.
133
any other members of the order. Finally,
we have seen that even some of the Half-apes
present most remarkable resemblances to man.
The teaching then, of the skeleton, as also of
the other parts we have as yet reviewed,
seems to be that resemblance to man is shared
in different and not very unequal degrees by
divers species of the order, rather than that
any one kind is plainly and unquestionably
much more human than any of the others.'
Affinities seem rather to radiate from man
in various directions than to follow one
special route. At present, however, the facts
presented are not sufficient to warrant the
expression of a confident judgment. In order
to arrive at such a judgment it will be
necessary to survey the other organs of the
body; and then, summarising the results, we
shall have material sufficient to examine the
third question proposed, namely, the bearing
of the facts upon the theory of evolution as
applied to man.
}
134
PART III.
HAVING Completed our survey of certain
characters presented by the skeleton in dif-
ferent species of the order PRIMATES, other
systems of organs may now be adverted to.
That system of parts which clothes and is
attached to the various parts of the skeleton.
may be taken naturally after the skeleton
itself.
This system consists of the flesh, which,
being divided into a number of segments and
layers by intervening membrane, constitutes
the muscles, or active organs of motion.
The muscles, however, present few charac-
ters of any great value for our purpose; and
MAN AND APES.
135
this might be anticipated, since, being the
special organs of motion, they would naturally
be expected to be peculiarly modifiable and to
present every variety of adaptive modification.
Speaking generally, the apes resemble man
myologically more than do the Half-apes, and
the latter may present us with special aberrant
modifications; such, e.g., as the presence of
an extra muscle, called rotator fibula, placed
between the shin-bone (tibia) and the adjacent.
small bone (fibula) of the leg.
It is the group of latisternal apes (Simiina)
which approach man most closely in muscular
structure, as we have seen they do in the bony
framework which supports the muscles.
Amongst these higher apes the Orang shows
again a certain inferiority as to its muscles,
reminding us of the aberrations we have
already seen to exist in its skeleton.
Thus in its foot, the great toe, in spite of
its small relative size, is furnished with a
special short muscle (called opponens hallucis)
not found in other latisternal apes, any more
136
MAN AND APES.
than in man. This, indeed, is a special de-
velopment, and is no approximation to an
inferior type of structure.
On the contrary, both the great toe and the
thumb have no distinct tendon sent to them
from the deep long flexor muscles of the arm
and leg respectively. In this respect we find
an inverse difference to that precedingly
noticed.
Again, the long muscle called flexor longus
hallucis does not take origin, as in the other
highest apes, from the leg, but from the bone
of the thigh.
But neither the skeleton, nor yet the flesh
which clothes it, can be considered as the
most important system of organs, nor that
best calculated to manifest degrees of affinity
or supremacy. It is not the pillars, shields,
and levers of the body (bones), nor the cords
and fastenings which brace together (liga-
ments), or by tension act upon (muscles) those
pillars and levers, which can rationally be
regarded as supreme. Such supremacy must
MAN AND APES.
137
rather be conceded to the regulating and co-
ordinating apparatus by means of which the
tensions are so varied and directed as to
produce harmonious and consentient results.
But this supremacy is still further manifest
when we consider that the very integrity of
these structures is maintained, and their
repair effected, by the agency of that very
same co-ordinating apparatus which is the con-
troller of animal life, the lord of all within its
own boundaries, and which says to every other
system of parts, "Starve thou before me."
This supreme and dominant apparatus is
the nervous system. The ape, which has this
system-and especially the dominant part of
this dominant system, namely, the brain-
most in conformity with the same system in
man, must surely be held to be the most
materially man-like in structure.
Now, it is not the Chimpanzee, certainly
not the Gorilla nor yet the Gibbons, which
most resemble man as regards his brain. In
this respect the Orang stands highest in rank,
138
MAN AND APES.
In the first place, the height of the Orang's
cerebrum in front is greater in proportion
than in either the Chimpanzee or the Gorilla;
while the brain of the last-named animal falls
below that of the Chimpanzee, in that it is
relatively longer and more depressed, as com-
pared with man's brain,
Each half of the cerebrum is divisible into
four parts or lobes (Fig. 54-57.) The
first of these (marked 1, 2, and 3) is the
"frontal." The second (marked 4, 5, and 6)
is the "parietal." The third (marked 10, 11,
and 12) is the "occipital;" and the fourth
(marked 7, 8, and 9, in Fig. 54, 7, 6, 9) is the
"temporal."
On comparing the brain of man with the
brains of the Orang, Chimpanzee, and Baboon,
we find a successive decrease in the frontal
lobe, and a successive and very great increase
in the relative size of the occipital lobe.
Concomitantly with this increase and de-
crease, certain folds of brain substance, called
bridging convulsions" (marked a and ß),
66
3
3
2
2
3
3
༡༨
R
7
4-
5
7
5
FIG. 54.-BRAIN OF MAN (Homo), LEFT SIDE.
5
8
7
5)B
9
∞
51
α
10
/2
ป
D
FIG. 55.-BRAIN OF THE ORANG (Simia), LEFT SIDE.
2
2
3
3
3/3
4
4
5
7
7
R
8
5
R
FIG. 56.-BRAIN OF CHIMPANZEE (Troglodytes), LEFT SIDE.
∞0
5
5
6
7
७
6
8
"
10
11
10
12
FIG. 57-BRAIN OF MANDRILL BABOON (Cynocephalus),
LEFT SIDE.
MAN AND APES.
143
which in man are conspicuously interposed
between the parietal and occipital lobes, seem
as utterly to disappear in the Chimpanzee as
they do in the Baboon. In the Orang, how-
ever, though much reduced, they are still to
be distinguished. Besides these matters, the
temporal lobe becomes less horizontal and
more depressed as we proceed from man to
the Baboon.
These distinctions, with some others, have
been pointed out in France by the late
lamented M. Gratiolet,* and in England by
Professor Rolleston. Mr. Marshall, F.R.S.,
has also given his verdict" on the interesting
question of the relative superiority of the
Chimpanzee's and Orang's brain" "in favour
of the latter."
Messrs. Schroeder van der Kolk and W.
Mémoire sur les plis cérébraux de l'homme et des
primates.'
† Nat. Hist. Review,' vol i. p. 201, and in a Lecture
at the Royal Institution, reported in the 'Medical Times'
for February and March 1862.
Nat. Hist. Review,' vol. i. p. 310.
144
MAN AND APES.
Vrolik, the distinguished naturalists of Am-
sterdam, fully recognise the resemblance of
the brain of the Orang to that of man to be
closer than that presented by the brain of any
other ape.
The actual and absolute mass of the brain
is, however, slightly greater in the Chimpanzee
than in the Orang, as is the relative vertical.
extent of the middle part of the cerebrum,
although, as aforesaid, the frontal portion is
higher in the Orang. When we turn to the
Gorilla we find, from M. Gratiolet,* that this.
much vaunted and belauded ape is not only
inferior to the Orang in cerebral development,
but even to his smaller African congener, the
Chimpanzee.
In the first place, its brain scarcely equals,
(at least in some cases) that of the Chimpanzee
in actual mass. It is also flatter, and its frontal
lobe is less projecting in front of its temporal
lobe. Altogether, M. Gratiolet tells us, its
brain-characters make of the Gorilla-in spite
* See Comptes rendus, April 30th, 1860, p. 801.
MAN AND APES.
145
of its size and strength-the lowest and most
degraded of all the latisternal apes. Moreover,
the disposition of its convolutions is such as
(in the opinion of M. Gratiolet) to connect it
with the Baboons, while the Chimpanzee is
similarly connected with the Macaques. Our
author suggests that if the Orang be con-
sidered as the head and culminating point of
development, following the line of the Semno-
pitheci and Gibbons, then the Chimpanzee
may be taken to be the head, or, as it were,
the Orang, of the series of Macaques, while
the Gorilla is but the culmination of that type
of cerebral structure elsewhere exhibited by
the relatively brutal and degraded Baboons.
This is an appreciation of the animal widely
different from that still popular in England,
in spite of Professor Rolleston's efforts to
propagate the true Simian faith respecting
this "would-be king of the Simiada."
The Professor expresses himself* as follows:
* Medical Times,' for February 1862, vol. i.
No. 608, p. 184.
L
146
MAN AND APES.
"In the world of science, as in that of
politics, France and England have occasion-
ally differed as to their choice between rival
candidates for royalty. . . . If either heredi-
tary claims or personal merits affect at all the
right of succession, beyond a question the
Gorilla is but a pretender, and one or other of
the two candidates the true prince. There is
a graceful as well as an ungraceful way of
withdrawing from a false position, and the
British public will adopt the graceful course
by accepting forthwith and henceforth the
French candidate, and by endorsing M. Gra-
tiolet's proposal for speaking of the Gorilla
as but a Baboon, of the Chimpanzee as a
Macaque, and of the Orang as a Gibbon."
There can be no question, then, but that in
this most important organ the Orang is man's
nearest ally, while the Gorilla is quite remark-
ably inferior.
This closeness of resemblance between the
brains of the Orang and of man becomes yet
more striking when we consider how great
MAN AND APES.
147
in this respect is the divergence between the
Orang and those lowest of Apes-the Marmo-
sets in which the cerebrum is smooth and
entirely devoid of furrows and convolutions.
In the lower sub-order-the Lemuroids-the
divergence is much greater still, so much so,
indeed, that the Half-apes, as to their brains,
have far nearer resemblances to animals alto-
gether below the order PRIMATES than to the
higher members of that order.
It must nevertheless be borne in mind, if
we would estimate the value of these cerebral
characters with perfect fairness, that forms
zoologically distant sometimes resemble each
other in brain-characters, while closely allied
forms strangely differ. Thus, as M. Gratiolet
has pointed out, the "bridging convolutions
between the parietal and occipital lobes re-
appear in the Spider Monkeys, while two
species of Sapajou (Cebus), so closely allied as
to have been sometimes treated as one species,
differ strangely from each other in this re-
spect.
"2
L 2
148
MAN AND APES.
Again, much stress has been laid, by some
writers, on the great relative extension back-
wards of the hinder parts of the cerebrum and
cerebellum in man. But in the little Squir-
rel Monkey of America the cerebrum extends
backwards beyond the cerebellum, much more
than it does in ourselves, while in that re-
markable species of Hylobates-the Siamang
Gibbon (which is so man-like in its chin, and
which exceeds man in the breadth of its
sternum) - the cerebrum is so short as to
leave the cerebellum very decidedly uncovered
at its hinder part. In the Howling Monkeys,
again, this exposure of the cerebellum is yet
greater, and nevertheless these monkeys be-
long to a family in which, as we have seen,
the overlapping of the cerebellum by the
cerebrum attains to its maximum of develop-
ment.
Yet the psychical powers of different apes
are very similar. Not only the lowest Baboons
of Africa (as, e.g., the famed " Happy Jerry
of Exeter Change) can be taught various and
""
MAN AND APES:
149
complex tricks and performances, but the less
man-like American Monkeys-the common
Sapajous-are habitually selected by peripa-
tetic Italians for the exhibition of the most
clever and prolonged performances.
G
As to the two species of Sapajou, the brains
of which are so different the one from the
other, Professor Rolleston asks: "Will any-
body pretend that any difference can be de-
tected in the psychical phenomena, the mental
manifestations of these creatures, at all in
correspondence or concomitant variation with
their differences of cerebral conformation ?"
The difference between the brain of the
Orang and that of man, as far as yet ascer-
tained, is a difference of absolute mass. It is
a mere difference of degree, and not of kind.
Yet the difference between the mind of man
and the psychical faculties of the Orang is a
difference of kind, and not one of mere
degree.*
Thus, on the one hand we see that we may
* See Quarterly Review,' July 1871.
150
MAN AND APES.
have great differences in brain development
unaccompanied by any corresponding psychical
diversities, and on the other we may have vast
psychical differences which it seems we must
refer to other than cerebral causes.
Professor Huxley has sought to invalidate
such inferences,* first, by asserting, what is of
course perfectly true, that intellectual power
(as we daily experience it) depends, not on
the development of the brain alone, but also
on that of "the organs of the senses and of
the motor apparatuses." But surely to this
we may reply that, in these respects, no one
pretends even that there is much difference
between man and apes.
Secondly, Professor Huxley objects that the
cerebral differences may be of so minute a cha-
racter as to have escaped observation; and he
compares the brains of man and ape with
two watches, one of which will, and the other
will not, keep accurate time. He exclaims,
"A hair in the balance-wheel, a little rust on
*Man's Place in Nature,' p. 102, note.
MAN AND APES.
151
a pinion, a bend in a tooth of the escapement,
a something so slight that only the practised
eye of the watchmaker can discover it, may
be the source of all the difference.'
It would be, however, to say the least,
somewhat singular to attribute to hypotheti-
cal and confessedly minute differences, effects
which as yet we have not seen to accompany
or be produced by certainly present and con-
fessedly considerable differences which we have
seen.
With how much force then does not the
comparative anatomy of the present day re-
echo the truth long ago proclaimed by
Buffon,† that material structure and physical
forces can never alone account for the presence
of mind.
Speaking of the ape, the most man-like as
to brain, he says:—
"Il ne pense pas y a-t-il une preuve plus
évidente que la matière seule, quoique par-
faitement organisée, ne peut produire ni la
* Hist. Nat.,' t. xiv. p. 61, 1766.
152
MAN AND APES.
i
pensée, ni la parole qui en est la signe, à
moins qu'elle ne soit animée par un principe
supérieur ?"
In passing from the brain to the
organs of
sense, it
may be remarked that the ear of the
Gorilla is more human than that of any other
Primate, in that it has a rudimentary lobule,
that is to say, a rudiment of that soft depending
portion into which the "ear-ring "is inserted.
The nose, on the contrary, exhibits a pro-
minence slightly approximating to that of
man, not in the Gorilla, but in one of the
Gibbons, namely, the Hoolock.
The projection of man's nose is, however,
exceeded by that of the long-tailed Bornean
ape, called the Proboscis Monkey, on account
of the length of its nasal organ. It belongs,
as was before said, to the genus Semnopithecus.
No other species of that genus exhibits any
approximation to a similar nasal elongation.
The tongue of the Orang is more like that
of man than is the tongue of any other
latisternal ape, and the large papilla of the
}
«JACKBO
4.0m
FIG. 58.-THE KAHAU, OR PROBOSCIS MONKEY.
"!!!
FIG. 59.-FACE OF PROBOSCIS MONKEY.
MAN AND APES.
155
back of the tongue (called circumvallate) more
resemble in arrangement even in the Gibbons
the same parts in man than they do in the
Chimpanzee, and very much more than in the
Gorilla.
The Gibbons, however, differ from man and
from all the higher latisternal apes in having
a little conical bifid membrane developed be-
neath the tongue.
On the other hand, the Gibbons have a
stomach which is very human, and a liver
which is more like the liver of man than is
that of any other animal whatever.
The liver of the Orang and Chimpanzee is
not very different from that of man, but,
strange to say, in the Gorilla we meet with a
very degraded liver, and one formed on the
type of liver which exists in the lower
monkeys and the baboons-with the lobes
subdivided.
The teeth of apes resemble those of man in
varying degrees, and the several resemblances
which may exist are by no means present at
156
MAN AND APES.
the same time in the dentition of any one of
the latisternal apes.
1. One striking character of the human
teeth is their almost equal vertical develop-
ment. All the apes, on the contrary, possess
more or less projecting tusk-like "eye-teeth,"
or "canines," as they are technically called,
because similarly projecting in the dog.
Now, in all the broad-breastboned apes,
the canines are both exceedingly long and
powerful, and, indeed, the Simiina are almost
like Baboons in this respect.
The nearest approach to man is found, not
in the apes at all, but in the Half-apes, where
in some forms (as, e.g., Hapalemur) the excess
in length of the canines over the grinding
teeth is very small indeed.
2. The second noteworthy character of the
human dentition is the close approximation of
the teeth one to another serially, so that no
vacant space (or, as it is technically called,
diastema) is left between any two adjacent
teeth.
WW
180
SUGA
MWYNEBO
FIG. 60.-DENTITION OF Hapalemur.
Da
MAN AND APES.
159
To find a similarity to man in this respect
we have again to descend through the whole
series of apes, till we come to the lower and
more aberrant forms of the Half-apes, and
there alone, in the little Tarsier of Celebes,
we once more meet with teeth placed in serial
contiguity, as in man.
3. A third character which may here be
mentioned, is one exhibited by the masticating
surfaces of the larger grinding teeth of the
upper jaw. We find in man on the mastica-
ting surface of each of these teeth an oblique
ridge, running from the front inner angle of
such surface outwards, and backwards to its
hind outer angle.
This character is found also in the teeth of
the Orang, Chimpanzee, and Gorilla, but it
does not exist in those of the Gibbons, nor in
those of any of the lower Simiadæ. Here, then,
we seem to come upon a striking character
as to affinity with man-a character the more
deep and significant, in that it is hard to
see how the presence of this slight ridge
160
MAN AND APES.
should be so favourable in the life-struggle as
to be independently developed in different
forms by any mere action of natural selection.
Nevertheless, when we pass to the American
apes we find it reappearing in the Spider and
Howling Monkeys, and, strange to say, even
amongst the Half-apes (e.g., in Arctocebus,
Microcebus, and Galago) the same structure
is distinctly developed.
4. The fourth character is one drawn from
the order of the succession of the teeth. Each
eye-tooth of the second or permanent set is
cut in man before the hindmost grinder but
one makes its appearance. In the Orang,
Chimpanzee, and Gorilla all the grinders of
the second set make their appearance before
the canines of the same set. In the Gibbons,
the canines accompany, if they do not precede,
the appearance of the hindmost grinder, and
so far, therefore, these animals seem to ap-
proximate to the human condition; but the
resemblance is of no significance, since it is
a condition often found in the lower apes.
MAN AND APES.
161
Most of the Gibbons, again, resemble man
more than do the Orang, Chimpanzee, or
Gorilla, or than many of the lower Simiada,
in the absence of large saccular dilatations, or
pouches, in connection with the larynx.
The shape of the stomach is more human
in the Gibbons than in the other broad-breast-
boned apes.
The Orang has been said to have no uvula,
but, as Professor Flower has pointed out, it
is present, though disguised by the extent of
development of adjacent membrane.
In man and in all Primates the large
intestine gives off a considerable blind off-
shoot (the cacum), which has attached to it a
singular little worm-like process, called the
vermiform appendix. This is not found in any
apes other than the Simiince, and its develop-
ment is most like man in the Gibbons.
It may be well now to recapitulate and
group together the characters in and by
which different apes and Half-apes resemble
and differ from man.
M
162
MAN AND APES.
Besides the highest apes, certain of the
lower and lowest forms have been seen to
merit our attention.
The Gorilla resembles man more than does
any other latisternal ape in the following
points :-(1) The great bulk of its whole
body; (2) the possession of a lobule to the
ear; (3) the prominence of the upper part
of the bones of the nose; (4) the develop-
ment of a vaginal ridge beneath the skull on
each side; (5) the shape of the blade-bone;
(6) the relative length of the hand to the
spine; (7) that of the fore-arm to the upper
arm; (8) that of the thumb to the back-bone;
(9) that of the thumb to the whole hand ;
(10) that of the ankle-bones to the whole
foot; (11) that of the great toe to the spine;
(12) the length of the neck of the thigh-bone.
The Gorilla differs more from man than do
any other of the broad-breastboned apes, in that
-(1) The bony muscular ridges on the skull
are enormously developed; (2) the cerebrum
is of relatively small vertical extent; (3) the
MAN AND APES.
163
brainfolds (cerebral convolutions) are formed
on the type of brain found existing in Baboons;
(4) the liver is Baboon-like in its subdivided
condition; (5) the large papillæ of the tongue
are scattered, and not collected into a V-shaped
aggregation.
It should also be recollected that there are
characters by which the Gorilla differs more
from man than does some one or other of
the latisternal forms, whether it be the Chim-
panzee, the Orang, or the long-armed apes.
Such are the non-development of a chin, the
number of ribs, &c., &c.
The Chimpanzee is the most man-like of
the Simiince in the following points :-(1) The
shortness of the arms compared with the
length of the spine; (2) their shortness (the
hands being included) compared with the legs
and feet; (3) the length of the humerus
compared with that of the spine; (4) the
length of the radius compared with that of
the spine; (5) the length of the longest toe
compared with that of the spine; (6) the near
M 2
164
MAN AND APES.
approximation in length of the great toe to
the absolutely longest toe; (7) the height of
the frontal lobe of the cerebrum. On the
other hand, the Chimpanzee differs from man
more than do any of the latisternal apes in
that the leg and foot (taken together) are so
short compared with the length of the spine.
Besides this, as we have seen in several
important characters, the Chimpanzee is less
human than is one or other of the Simiina.
Such characters are, e.g., the number of the
lumber vertebræ, the shape of the blade-bone,
of the sacrum, &c., &c.
The Orang is most like man in (1) the
development of the beard in the males
(2) in the development of the styloid process;
(3) in the length of the leg and foot taken
together compared with that of the back-
bone; (4) in the length of the crest of the
ilium; (5) in the development of the spine of
the ischium; (6) in the length of the foot
compared with that of the hand; (7) in the
relative height of the cerebrum; (8) in the
MAN AND APES.
165
large proportion of its frontal lobe; (9) in
the small proportion of its occipital lobe;
(10) in the development of the "bridging
convolutions;" (11) in the characters of the
tongue; (12) in the high and rounded form
of the skull.
The Orang, in addition to the characters
before noted,* differs from man more than do
any other of the broad-breastboned apes in
(1) that the breast-bone is formed of two series
of pieces; (2) in the length of the leg, with-
out the foot, compared with that of the back-
bone; (3) in the length of the shin-bone
compared with that of the femur; (4) in the
length of the foot compared with that of the
back-bone; (5) in the length of the foot
compared with that of the shin-bone; (6) in
the length of the foot compared with that of
the spine; (7) in the shortness of the tarsus
compared with the length of the whole foot;
(8) in the shortness of the hallux compared
with the spine.
* See Antea, pp. 126, 127.
166
MAN AND APES.
Some or other of the Gibbons are most like
man in (1) the breadth of the breast-bone;
(2) the shortness of the cervical spinous
processes; (3) the development of a "chin;"
(4) in the length of the leg, without the foot,
compared with that of the spine; (5) the
length of the blade-bone compared with that
of the spine; (6) the length of the haunch-
bone compared with that of the spine; (7)
the breadth of the pelvis compared with the
length of the haunch-bone; (8) in the length
of the femur compared with that of the spine;
(9) the length of the femur compared with
that of the haunch-bone; (10) the relative
slenderness of the thigh-bone; (11) the
length of the shin-bone compared with that
of the femur; (12) the length of the foot
compared with that of the leg; (13) in the
length of the foot compared with the tibia;
(14) in the slenderness of the ancle; (15) in
the length of the great toe compared with
that of the whole foot; (16) the prominence
of the nose; (17) the form of the stomach;
MAN AND APES.
167
(18) that of the liver; (19) that of the
vermiform appendix; (20) the succession of
the teeth; (21) the absence of laryngeal
sacs; (22) the quality of the voice.
All the Gibbons differ from man, more
than do any other of the broad-breastboned
apes, in that (1) the length of the arms com-
pared with that of the spine is so great;
(2) in the excessive length of the leg and
foot (taken together) compared with that of
the spine; (3) in the length of the foot
compared with that of the hand; (4) in the
structure of the tongue underneath; (5) in
the form of the upper grinding teeth; (
in
the smaller size of the body, and, in the
Siamang, in the uncovered cerebellum.
We have seen also that some or other of
the Baboons-the lowest of the Simiada-
excel all the higher apes in resemblance to
man as to certain points. These are: -(1)
The sigmoid curvature of the spine; (2) the
lumbo-sacral angle; (3) the concavity of the
visceral surface of the sacrum; (4) the con-
og da de
168
MAN AND APES.
vexity of the bones of the nose; (5) the
development of the styloid process; (6) the
transverse breadth of the pelvis as compared
with its depth from the sacrum to the pubis;
(7) the greater descent of the inner condyle
of the femur; (8) the length of the foot
compared with that of the back-bone; (9)
the angle formed by the axis of the cranium
with the axis of the face.
The Cebidæ differ from both man and the
Simiada in such important characters that
they cannot but be considered to constitute
a family decidedly more inferior and remote
from man than that of the Old World apes.
Nevertheless, some or other of them resemble
man more than do the bulk of the Simiada
in the following characters :-(1) No ischial
callosities; (2) no cheek pouches; (3) copious
beard and whiskers (Sakis); (4) hair of arms
directed as in man;
man; (5) cranium more
rounded; (6) cranium higher; (7) face re-
latively smaller; (8) foramen magnum situate
more forwardly; (9) the length of the thumb
MAN AND APES.
169
compared with that of the hand (Hapale);
(10) the length of the thigh-bone compared
with that of the back-bone (Spider Monkeys);
(11) the greater descent of the inner condyle
of the femur (Spider Monkeys); (12) the
length of the shin-bone compared with that
of the femur (Spider Monkeys); (13) the
length of the hallux compared with that of
the spine (Pithecia); (14) the presence of
"bridging convolutions" (Spider Monkeys);
(15) the very overlapping cerebrum (Squirrel
Monkeys); (16) the oblique ridge on the
upper grinders (Howling Monkeys).
The Half-apes (Lemuroidea) differ, as be-
fore said, from both man and true apes in
points so numerous and so significant that
there can be no question as to their great
inferiority and the vast chasm which exists
between the two sub-orders.
Nevertheless, we find amongst the Half-
apes certain characters which resemble those
of man more than do most, sometimes even
more than do any, of the characters exhibited
170
MAN AND APES.
by the true apes. Thus, the typical Lemurs
and the Indris have a more completely
opposable and better developed thumb than
any ape. In the slender Loris we find an
absence of the extra interlocking processes
(metapophyses and anapophyses) of the back
bone, the spinous processes of which do not
converge (fore and aft) towards a central
point; the pisiform bone of the wrist is
smaller than in any ape; the proportion
borne by the thumb to the hand in length is
more human, as is the form assumed by the
ischium, and the relative size of the foot
compared with the leg. In the Indrisina
and in Lepilemur we find but eight carpal
bones (a character found in no other Primates
save man, the Chimpanzee and Gorilla), and
the most human proportional length of both
the thumb and the index finger compared
with the length of the spine. We also find
in the short-tailed Indris the length of the
femur compared with that of the haunch-bone
most human, as also the length of the foot
MAN AND APES.
171
compared with that of the hand, and the near
approach made by the length of the "great
toe" to the actually longest toe of the foot.
In the typical genus Lemur we find the
proportion (in length) of the thigh-bone to the
upper arm-bone most human, as well as that
of the longest toe to the back-bone. In the
Slow Lemur (Nycticebus), the length of the
shin-bone bears a relation to that of the thigh-
bone more human than in any other species
below man, while in other kinds of Half-apes
we meet with a development of the anterior
inferior spinous process of the ilium more
like that of man than we find in any ape;
also upper grinding teeth furnished with the
"oblique ridge" as in man, and sometimes an
almost equality of vertical development in the
teeth, and even an absence of any diastema.
Having completed our survey and summary
of the structural resemblances and differences
presented by the different forms of Primates,
we may now consider and endeavour to
appraise their value, as bearing upon the
172
MAN AND APES.
question of the "Origin of Species," and
especially upon the asserted "descent of man"
from some "non-human" ape ancestor. The
question, that is, as to man's body; for as to
the totality of his nature no mere anatomical
examinations will enable us to decide that
is the task of psychology and philosophy
generally.
In the first place, it is manifest that man,
the apes, and Half-apes cannot be arranged
in a single ascending series of which man is
the term and culmination.
We may, indeed, by selecting one organ, or
one set of parts, and confining our attention
to it, arrange the different forms in a more or
less simple manner. But, if all the organs be
taken into account, the cross relations and in-
terdependencies become in the highest degree
complex and difficult to unravel.
This has been more or less generally
recognised; but it has been put forward by
Mr. Darwin,* and widely accepted, that the
*Descent of Man,' vol. i. P.
197.
MAN AND APES.
173
resemblances between man and apes are such
that man may be conceived to have descended
from some ancient members of the broad-breast-
boned group of apes, and the Gorilla is still
popularly credited with the closest relationship
to him which is to be found in all existing
apes.
As to the latter opinion, evidence has been
here adduced to show that it is quite un-
tenable.
As to Mr. Darwin's proposition, much re-
mains to be said. But it is certainly true
that on the whole the anatomical characters
of man's body have much more resemblance
to those common to the latisternal group than
to those presented by any other section of the
order Primates.
But, in the first place, we should consider
what evidence of common origin does com-
munity of structure afford.
The human structural characters are shared
by so many and such diverse forms, that
it is impossible to arrange even groups of
174
MAN AND APES.
genera in a single ascending series from the
Aye-Aye to man (to say nothing of so ar-
ranging the several single genera), if all
the structural resemblances are taken into
account.
On any conceivable hypothesis there are
many similar structures, each of which must
be deemed to have been independently evolved
in more than one instance.
If the number of wrist-bones be deemed a
special mark of affinity between the Gorilla,
Chimpanzee, and man, why are we not to
consider it also a special mark of affinity
between the Indris and man? That it should
be so considered, however, would be deemed
an absurdity by every evolutionist.
If the proportions of the arms speak in
favour of the Chimpanzee, why do not the
proportions of the legs serve to promote the
rank of the Gibbons?
If the 66
bridging convolutions" of the
Orang go to sustain its claim to supremacy,
they also go far to sustain a similar claim on
MAN AND APES.
175
the part of the long-tailed, thumbless Spider
Monkeys.
If the obliquely-ridged teeth of Simia and
Troglodytes point to community of origin, how
can we deny a similar community of origin,
as thus estimated, to the Howling Monkeys
and Galagos?
The liver of the Gibbons proclaims them
almost human; that of the Gorilla declares
him comparatively brutal.
The ear lobule of the Gorilla makes him
our cousin; but his tongue is eloquent in his
own dispraise.
The slender Loris, from amidst the Half-
apes, can put in many a claim to be our
shadow refracted, as it were, through a
Lemurine prism.
The lower American apes meet us with
what seems "the front of Jove himself,"
compared with the gigantic but low-browed
denizens of tropical Western Africa.
In fact, in the words of the illustrious
Dutch naturalists, Messrs. Schroeder van der
176
MAN AND APES.
Kolk, and Vrolik,* the lines of affinity exist-
ing between different Primates construct rather
a network than a ladder.
It is indeed a tangled web, the meshes of
which no naturalist has as yet unravelled by
the aid of natural selection. Nay, more, these
complex affinities form such a net for the use
of the teleological retiarius as it will be dif-
ficult for his Lucretian antagonist to evade,
even with the countless turns and doublings
of Darwinian evolutions.
But, it may be replied, the spontaneous
and independent appearance of these similar
structures is due to "atavism" and "re-
version"-to the reappearance, that is, in
modern descendants, of ancient and sometimes
long-lost structural characters, which formerly
existed in more or less remote hypothetical
ancestors.
Let us see to what this reply brings us.
If it is true, and if man and the Orang are
diverging descendants of a creature with
*Nat. Hist. Review,' vol. ii. p. 117.
MAN AND APES.
177
certain cerebral characters, then that remote
ancestor must also have had the wrist of the
Chimpanzee, the voice of a long-armed ape,
the blade-bone of the Gorilla, the chin of the
Siamang, the skull-dome of an American ape,
the ischium of a slender Loris, the whiskers
and beard of a Saki, the liver and stomach
of the Gibbons, and the number of other
characters before detailed, in which the
various several forms of higher or lower
Primates respectively approximate to man.
But to assert this is as much as to say that
low down in the scale of Primates was an
ancestral form so like man that it might well
be called an homunculus; and we have the
virtual pre-existence of man's body supposed,
in order to account for the actual first
appearance of that body as we know it—a
supposition manifestly absurd if put forward
as an explanation.
Nor if such an homunculus had really
existed, would it suffice to account for the
difficulty. For it must be borne in mind that
N
178
MAN AND APES.
man is only one of many peculiar forms.
The body of the Orang is as exceptional in
its way as is that of man in another. The
little Tarsier has even a more exceptional
structure than has man himself. Now, all
these exceptional forms show cross relations
and complex dependencies as involved and
puzzling as does the human structure, so that
in each several case we should meet with a
similar network of difficulties, if we sought
to account for existing structural characters
through the influence of inheritance and
"natural selection."
It may be replied that certain of these cha-
racters have arisen in total independence, and
this reply is no doubt true; but how are we to
discriminate between those which are inherited
and those which are independently acquired?
Structures like strong teeth or powerful claws,
obviously useful in the struggle for life, may
well be supposed to have independently ap-
peared, and been preserved time after time;
but what characters could well be thought,
☺
MAN AND APES.
179
à priori, less likely to be independently
acquired than a more or less developed chin,
such as man shares with the Siamang alone,
or a slightly aquiline nose, such as that found
in the Hoolock Gibbon and often in the
human species? Can either character be
thought to have preserved either species in
the struggle for life, or have persistently
gained the hearts of successive generations of
female Gibbons? Certainly seductiveness of
this sort will never explain the arrangement
of the lobes of the liver, or the presence of an
oblique ridge on the grinding surfaces of the
back teeth.
Again, can this oblique ridge of the
grinding teeth be supposed to have arisen.
through life necessities? and yet, if it is a
real sign of genetic affinity, how comes it to
be absent from the man-like Gibbons, and to
reappear for the first time in American apes,
and among others in the aberrant and more or
less baboon-like Howling Monkeys?
The same remark applies to the condition of
N 2
180
MAN AND APES.
wrist-bones of man, the Chimpanzee, and Indris.
If this condition arises independently, and is
no mark whatever of genetic affinity, what
other single character can with certainty be
deemed to be valid evidence of affinity of the
kind?
But if the foregoing facts and considerations
tell against a belief in the origin of man and
apes, by the purely accidental preservation in
the struggle of life of minute and fortuitous
structural variations, do they tell against the
doctrine of evolution generally?
To this question it must be replied that, if
we have reason to think an innate law has
been imposed upon nature, by which new
and definite species, under definite conditions,
emerge from a latent and potential being into
actual and manifest existence, then the fore-
going facts do not in the least tell against such
a conception—a conception, that is, of a real
and true process of "evolution" or "un-
folding."
For there is no conceivable reason why
MAN AND APES.
181
these latent specific forms should not have the
most complex and involved relationships one
to another; similar structures independently
appearing in widely different instances.
Analogy drawn from the inorganic world is
all in favour of such latent potentialities, and
the process of development of every individual
animal is the unmistakable manifestation of
actual organic evolution and emergence of real
from potential existence in each separate case.
It has recently been strongly asserted by
Dr. H. Charlton Bastian,* that organic nature
does manifestly contain within it these innate
powers of developing new and definite forms,
more or less like those existing in inorganic
nature, as evidenced by crystallisation.
He has given detailed descriptions † of the
most strange and startling direct transforma-
tions amongst the lower animals, including
the direct evolution of Rotifers and Nema-
toid worms. Moreover, the evidence of the
* The Beginnings of Life,' 1872.
† L. c. vol. ii. pp. 307–540.
182
MAN AND APES.
occurrence of sudden and direct transforma-
ticns does not repose on Dr. Bastian's observa-
tions alone. Similar phenomena have been
observed by M. Pineau, M. Jules Haime, M.
T. C. Hildyard, Mr. Metcalf Johnson, Dr.
Gros, and M. Nicolet.*
It would be difficult and eminently un-
scientific summarily to reject such an accumu-
lation of evidence. To do so simply on an
account of à priori prejudice, reposing upon
nothing better than negative testimony, would
be in the highest degree unphilosophical.
Moreover, we have of late years become
acquainted with the remarkable fact of the
occassional sudden transformation of a certain
large Mexican Eft with external gills—the
Axolotl into an animal not only of a dif-
ferent species but of a different genus. Here
the whole structure, the arrangement even of
certain bones and distribution of the teeth in
the jaws, becomes transformed without the
* For an account of their observations and references
to their original statements, see 'Bastian,' Op. cit. vol. ii.
pp. 493–527.
1
تر
މ
FIG. 61.-THE AXOLOTL SEEN ABOVE, AND ALSO A VIEW
OF THE UNDER JAW AND THROAT.
MAN AND APES.
185
most careful observations having as yet en-
abled us to discover what conditions determine
in these exceptional cases such a marvellous
metamorphosis.
It is true that the Axolotl has characters
of immaturity, and that the form ultimately
attained by it is probably the fully-developed
condition; but the wonder is thus only in-
creased, since while the ordinary and imma-
ture Axolotls breed freely, the rarely-developed
adults are absolutely sterile.
To revert from this digression, however, to
the question of the cause and mode of specific
origin. I have elsewhere* endeavoured to
show, by many different facts, what is the
teaching of nature as to such origin—namely,
that very frequently indeed similarity of
structure may arise without there being any
genetic affinity between the resembling forms,†
as also that it is much rather to an internal
cause or principle than to any action of
* Genesis of Species,' 2nd edition, 1872.
† Genesis of Species,' p. 71, chap. iii., on the co-
existence of closely similar structures of diverse origin.
186
MAN AND APES.
surrounding external conditions that the
origin of new specific forms is due.*
The characters and relations exhibited to us
by the history of the highest order of mam-
mals—the order Primates, common to us and
to the apes-seems then not only fully to
corroborate, but to accentuate and intensify
the arguments advanced in the 'Genesis of
Species' in support of what the author believes
to be the more philosophical conception of
the cause and nature of "specific genesis"
generally.
Not only is there abundant reason to
believe that apes and Half-apes have little,
if any, closer genetic affinity than they have
either with Lions or with Whales, but there
is some evidence to support the belief that
the apes of the Old and of the New Worlds
respectively (the Simiada and Cebidae) have
been created independently one of the other,
and that the various common characters they
exhibit are but parallel adaptive modifica-
* Op. cit. p. 251. chap. xi., on Specific Genesis.
MAN AND APES.
187
tions, due simply to similarity as to the exi-
gencies of life to which they are respectively
exposed.
Fossil remains, as yet unknown, may bridge
over the gulf at present existing between
these families. It would be a bold thing to
positively affirm that such will not be dis-
covered, when we reflect how very few are the
extinct animals known to us compared with
the vast multitudes which have existed, how
very rarely animal remains are fossilised, and
how very rarely again such fossils are both
accessible and actually found. Nevertheless,
the author believes that it is far more likely
that tropical geological explorations may re-
veal to us latisternal apes more human than
any now existing, rather than that they will
bring to our knowledge forms directly connect-
ing the Simiada and Cebidae.
To return from this subordinate question, it
may be asked, What is the bearing of all
the foregoing facts on the origin and affinities
of man?"
188
MAN AND APES.
Man being, as the mind of each man may
tell him, an existence not only conscious, but
conscious of his own consciousness; one not
only acting on inference, but capable of
analysing the process of inference; a creature
not only capable of acting well or ill, but of
understanding the ideas "virtue" and "moral
obligation," with their correlatives freedom of
choice and responsibility-man being all this,
it is at once obvious that the principal part
of his being is his mental power.
In nature there is nothing great but man,
In man there is nothing great but mind.
We must entirely dismiss, then, the con-
ception that mere anatomy by itself can have
any decisive bearing on the question as to
man's nature and being as a whole. To solve
this question, recourse must be had to other
studies; that is to say, to philosophy, and
especially to that branch of it which occupies
itself with mental phenomena-psychology.
But if man's being as a whole is excluded
from our present investigation, man's body
MAN AND APES.
189
2
considered by itself, his mere "massa corporea,"
may fairly be compared with the bodies of
other species of his zoological order, and his
corporeal affinities thus estimated.
Let us suppose ourselves to be purely im-
material intelligences, acquainted only with
a world peopled like our own, except that
man had never lived on it, yet into which the
dead body of a man had somehow been intro-
duced.
We should, I think, consider such a body to
be that of some latisternal ape, but of one
much more widely differing from all the
others than such others differ one from
another amongst themselves. We should be
especially struck with its vast brain, and we
should be the more impressed by it when we
noted how bulky was the body to which that
brain belonged. We should be so impressed
because we should have previously noted that,
as a general rule, in back-boned amimals, the
larger the bulk of the body the less the relative
size of the brain. From our knowledge of the
190
MAN AND APES.
habits and faculties of various animals in
relation to their brain structure, we should be
led to infer that the animal man was one
possessing great power of co-ordinating move-
ments, and that his emotional sensibility would
have been considerable. But above all, his
powers of imagination would have been deemed
by us to have been prodigious, with a cor-
responding faculty of collecting, grouping, and
preserving sensible images of objects in com-
plex and coherent aggregations to a degree
much greater than in any other animal with
which we were before acquainted. Did we
know that all the various other kinds of
existing animals had been developed one from
another by evolution; did we know that the
numerous species had been evolved from
potential to actual existence by implanted
powers in matter, aided by the influence of
incident forces; then we might reasonably
argue, by analogy, that a similar mode of
origin had given rise to the exceptional being,
the body of which we were examining.
MAN AND APES.
191
:
If, however, it were made clear to us-
immaterial intelligences-that the dead body
before us had been, in life, animated, not by a
merely animal nature, but by an active in-
telligence like our own, so that the difference
between him and all other animals was not a
difference of degree but of kind-if we could
be made to understand that its vast power of
collecting and grouping sensible images served
but to supply it with the materials made use
of by its intelligence to perceive, not merely
sensible phenomena, but also abstract qualities
of objects-if we became aware that the sounds
uttered by it in life were not exclusively
emotional expressions, but signs of general
conceptions (such as predominate in the
language of even the lowest savage), then
the aspect of the question would be entirely
altered for us.
We should probably decide that if the body
before us seemed to us to be so little related to
the informing rational soul that its existence
anterior to and independent of such rational
192
MAN AND APES.
soul was quite conceivable and possible, then its
origin by process of natural evolution would,
indeed, also be conceivable and indeed à priori
probable.
But if, on the other hand, we were convinced,
from whatever reason, that it was incon-
ceivable and impossible for such a body to
be developed or exist without such informing
soul, then we should, with perfect reason and
logic, affirm that as no natural process would
account for the entirely different kind of soul—
one capable of articulately expressing general
conceptions*-so
so no merely natural process
could account for the origin of the body
informed by it-a body to which such an
intellectual faculty was so essentially and
intimately related.
C
* "It is not emotional expressions or manifestations
of sensible impressions, however exhibited, which have to
be accounted for, but the enunciation of distinct deliberate
judgments as to the what,' 'the how,' and 'the why,' by
definite articulate sounds; and for these Mr. Darwin not
only does not account, but he does not adduce anything
even tending to account for them." Quarterly Review,'
July 1871. Article, The Descent of Man,' p. 79.
(
(
MAN AND APES.
193
Dropping now the metaphor of immaterial
spirits, it seems that the answers supposed to
be given by such spirits must be the answers
really given by sincere and unbiassed in-
vestigators in the combined spheres of Zoology
and Anthropology.
But however near to apes may be the body
of man, whatever the kind or number of
resemblances between them, it should be
always borne in mind that it is to no one
kind of ape that man has any special or
exclusive affinities-that the resemblances be-
tween him and lower forms are shared in not
very unequal proportions by different species;
and be the preponderance of resemblance in
which species it may, whether in the Chim-
panzee, the Siamang, or the Orang, there can
be no question that at least such preponderance
of resemblance is not presented by the much
vaunted Gorilla, which is essentially no less a
brute and no more a man than is the humblest
member of the family to which it belongs.
ACETABULUM, 119.
Affinities, radiating, 133.
Affinity, its direction, 176.
American apes, 10, 49, 50,85,175.
American monkeys, 55.
Angle of Skull, 98.
Angwantibo, 75.
Ankle, 76.
INDEX.
Ankle-bones, 126, 127.
Anthropoid apes, 13.
Anthropoidea, 9, 69, 83.
Anthropology, 193.
Apes, American, 10, 85.
Apes, Broad-breastboned, 13.
Apes, Genetic relations of, 186.
Apes, Long-armed, 18.
Apes of New World, 49.
Apes of Old World, 10.
Apes, Latisternal, 13, 91.
Arctocebus, 75, 83, 91.
Arm-bone, 106, 109.
Arm, length of, 104.
Arrangement of forms, 83, 173.
Astragalus, 123, 126, 127.
Atavism, 176.
Ateles, 45, 54, 59, 83.
Aves, 8.
Aye-Aye, 81.
Axolotl, 183.
Baboons, 42, 43, 84, 92, 95, 167.
Baboons, characters of, 167.
Back-bone, 92, 93.
Bastian, Dr. H. C., 181, 182.
Batrachia, 8.
Beard, 86.
Bimana, 87.
Black-crested monkey, 25, 28.
Blade-bone, 105, 107.
Body of man, 188.
Bones of nose, 104.
Bones of wrist, 109, 111.
Brachyurus, 57, 59,
Brain, 137.
Brain of Chimpanzee, 141.
Brain of man, 139.
Brain of Mandrill, 141.
Brain of Orang, 139.
Brain case, size of, 103.
Breast-bone, 96.
Bridging convolutions, 138, 147,
174.
INDEX.
195
Brilliant coloration, 42.
Broad-breastboned Apes, 13.
Brown Sapajou, 47, 56.
Buffon, 151.
Callathrix, 60, 83.
Callosities, 27, 86.
Canines, 156.
Capuchin, 47, 56.
Carnivora, 8.
Carpus, 103.
Cebus, 47, 50, 55, 83.
Celebes, 81.
Cheiromyidæ, 67, 81, 83.
Chimpanzee, 12, 13, 14, 17, 42,
85, 95, 96, 163, 180, 193.
Chimpanzee, brain of, 141.
Carpal-bones, number of, 111, Chimpanzee, characters of,
163.
Cercopithecus, 31, 33, 83.
Cerebral and psychical relations,
149.
Cerebrum, lobes of, 138.
Cerebrum, height of, 138.
Cervical vertebræ, 93.
Cetacea, 8.
Chacma, 42, 43.
Chaillu, M. de, 3.
Chameck, 47, 55.
Characters of Baboons, 167.
112.
Cebidæ, 10, 43, 49, 50, 83, 87, 92, Chimpanzee, skeleton of, 115.
168, 186, 187.
Chimpanzee, skull of, 99.
Chin, 103.
Cebidæ, characters of, 168.
Cebinæ, 50, 83.
Characters of Cebidæ, 168.
Characters of Chimpanzee, 163.
Characters, discrimination of,
178.
Characters of Orang, 164.
Characters, value of, 171, 173.
Cheek-pouches, 41, 49, 69, 91.
Cheirogaleus, ankle of, 126, 127.
Cheirogaleus, 74.
Cheiromys, 81, 83.
Cheiroptera, 6.
Characters of Gibbons, 166.
Characters of Gorilla, 162.
Characters of Half-apes, 169.
Chrysothrix, 60, 83.
Circumvallate, papillæ, 155.
Clavicle, 113, 115.
Coaita, 45, 55.
Cocum, 161.
Collar-bone, 105.
Colobus, 28, 29, 83.
Coloration, brilliant, 42.
Condyles of femur, 122, 123.
Convolutions of cerebrum, 138,
145.
Couxio, 55, 57.
Cranio-facial angle, 98.
Crests Cranial, 97.
Crystallisation, 181.
Cuboides, 123, 126, 127.
Cuneiform, 111.
Cuneiform bones, 123, 126, 127.
Curvature of spine, 92,
Cynocephalus, 33, 42, 43, 83.
Cynopithecinæ, 13, 33, 83, 91.
196
INDEX.
Darwin, Mr., 2, 7, 85, 172, 173.
Darwinism, 2.
Degrees of resemblance to man, Galvanism, 1,
81.
Dentition of Hapalemur, 157.
Development of Axolotl, 182.
Diadem Lemur, 67, 70.
Diana monkey, 34, 35, 86.
Diastema, 156.
Direction of hair, 86.
Discrimination of characters,
178.
Douroucouli, 60.
Drill, 42, 45.
Far lobule, 175.
Edentata, S.
Eft, Mexican, 182.
Entellus monkey, 23, 28.
Evolution, 180.
Eye-teeth, 156.
Femur, 113, 115, 121, 123.
Fibula, 113, 115, 123.
Flexor longus hallucis, 136.
Flower, Professor, 161.
Foot, definition of, 88.
Foot of man, 89.
Foot, proportions of, 125.
Foot of Orang, 89.
Fore-arm bones, 109.
Forehead, 175.
Forefinger, 75.
Fortuitous variation, 180.
Fossil remains, 187.
Frontal lobe, 138.
Galagininæ, 70, 76.
Galago, 77, 81, 83.
Galago, ankle of, 126 127.
Genesis of species, 186.
Genetic relations of Apes, 186.
Gibbons, 13, 18, 28, 55, 56, 166.
Gibbons, characters of, 166.
Gibraltar, Ape of, 91.
Gorilla, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 13, 14, 85,
95, 96, 162, 193.
Grasp, tenacity of, 76.
Gratiolet, M., 143, 144, 147.
Great toe, 60, 87, 129.
Green monkey, 31, 34.
Grinding teeth, 50, 63, 159.
Gros, Dr., 182.
Haime, Mr. Jules, 182.
Hair, 84.
Half-apes, 9, 64.
Half-apes, characters of, 169.
Half-apes, genetic relations of,
186.
Hallux, 87, 113, 115, 129.
Hapale, 60, 61, 83, 169.
Hapalemur, 75, 83.
Hapalemur, teeth of, 157.
Hapalinæ, 50, 83.
Happy Jerry," 148.
Haunch-bone, 119.
Hildyard, Mr. T. C., 182.
Hip-bone, 93, 113, 115, 119.
Hominidæ, 11, 69, 83.
Homo, 10.
Homunculus, 177.
(C
Hoolock, 179.
Hoolock, nose of, 152.
"
INDEX.
197
Howlers, 56.
Lemuroidea, 9, 69, 80.
Howling monkeys, 53, 56, 175. Length of arm, 104.
179.
Humerus, 106, 107, 113, 115.
Huxley, Professor, 150.
Hylobates, 18, 83, 84.
Ilium, 113, 115, 118, 119.
Incisors, 60.
Index finger, 75, 111.
Indris, 67, 70, 71, 83, 174.
Indrisinæ, 70, 83.
Inference, 188.
Innate law, 180.
Innus, M., 41.
Inorganic world, analogy of, 181.
Ischial callosities, 27, 34, 41, 42,
49, 69, 84.
Ischium, 93, 113, 115, 118,
119.
Insectivora, 9.
Intermedium, 112.
Internal Anatomy, 92.
Intestines, 161.
Johnson, Mr. Metcalf, 182.
Kahau, 28, 153.
Large intestine, 161.
Lar Gibbon, 21, 27.
Larynx, 161.
Latent being, 182.
Latisternal Apes, 13, 91.
Leg, length of, 105.
Leg, proportions of, 125.
Lemurinæ, 70, 83.
Lemur, 70, 71, 83, 166.
Lemuroids, 64, 85.
Length of cerebrum, 148.
Length of toes, 129.
Lepilemur, 75, 83, 170.
Ligamentum teres, 131.
Limbs, length of, 129, 130, 131.
Lines of affinity, 176.
Lions, 186.
Liver, 155, 175, 179, 186.
Lobule of ear, 152.
Long-armed apes, 18.
Loris, 75, 77, 83, 91, 95, 96, 121.
Lumbar vertebræ, 93.
Lunare, 111.
Macacus, 33, 37, 41, 83, 91.
Maholi Galago, 79.
Madagascar, 64, 70.
Mammalia, 8.
Man, 50, 187.
Man's body, 188.
Man, brain of, 139.
Man, ankle of, 126.
Man, foot of, 89.
Man, mind of, 188.
Man, origin of, 187.
Man, skeleton of, 113.
Man, skull of, 99.
Mandrill, 42, 43.
Mandrill, brain of, 141.
Map of brain, 144.
Marikina, 61, 64.
Marmosets, 60, 61, 64, 142.
Marmosets, brain of, 147.
Marshall, Mr., 143.
Marsupialia, 8.
198
INDEX.
Metacarpus, 109.
Metamorphosis of axolotl, 182.
Metatarsus, 123.
Mexican Eft, 182.
Mind of Man, 188.
Monotremata, 8.
Moor monkey, 25, 28.
Moral obligation, 188.
Muffs, ladies', 33.
Muscles, 134.
Mycetes, 53, 56.
Mycetinæ, 50, 83.
Myology, 134, 135, 136.
Mona monkey, 31, 34.
Monkeys of the New World, 49. Orang, skeleton of, 115.
Opponens hallucis muscle, 135.
Orang, 13, 14, 15, 17, 19, 86, 96,
160, 165, 178, 193.
Orang, brain of, 138, 139.
Orang, characters of, 164.
Orang, foot of, 89.
163
Nicolet, M., 182.
Nose, 179.
Nose, bones of, 104.
Nostrils, septum between, 50.
Number of carpal-bones, 111.
Number of wrist-bones, 174
Nycticebinæ, 70, 75, 83, 96, 97.
Nycticebus, 73, 75, 83.
Nyctipitheciinæ, 50, 60, 83.
Nyctipithecus, 58, 80.
Oblique dental ridge, 159.
Obturator foramen, 119.
Occipital lobe, 138.
Old World, apes of, 10.
Orang, skeleton of, compared
with man, 131.
Orang, skull of, 101.
Orang, tongue of, 152.
Origin of man, 187.
Origin of man, sentiments con-
Nakedness, 84, 85.
Naviculare, 123, 126, 127.
Neck of Femur, 122, 123.
Nematoid worms, 181.
Nervous system, 137.
New World, apes of, 10, 49, 85, Performances of Apes, 88, 148,
149.
Perodicticus, 75, 83.
Philosophy, 172, 188.
Pineau, M., 182.
Pisces, 8.
cerning, 4.
Origin of species, 172.
Os calcis, 123, 126, 127.
Ouistitis, 60, 64.
Owen, Professor, 3, 88.
Parietal lobe, 138.
Pelvis, 117.
Pisiform, 111.
Pithecia, 57, 83, 169.
Pitheciinæ, 50, 59, 83.
Pollex, 113, 115.
Papillæ of tongue, 152.
Potential being, 180.
Potto, 75.
Prehensile tails, 49, 50, 55, 56, 91.
Primates, 9.
Proboscidea, 8.
INDEX.
199
Proboscis monkey, 28, 152, 153.
Proportions of arms, 174.
Proportions of foot, 125.
Proportions of leg, 125.
Proportions of legs, 174.
Proportions of pelvis, 118.
Psychical powers of apes, 148.
Psychology, 172, 188.
Pubis, 93, 113, 115, 118, 119.
Quadrumana, 87, 88.
Radiation of affinities, 133.
Radius, 106, 109, 113, 115.
Reptilia, 8.
Reversion, 176.
Rhesus, 39, 41.
Ribs, 96.
Rotator fibulæ muscle, 135.
Rotifers, 181,
Sacrum, 93, 95, 117, 119.
Sac of larynx, 161.
Saimiri, 60.
Resemblance to Man, degrees | Simia, 18, 83, 84.
of, 84.
Sakis, 57, 59, 86, 168.
Sapajous, 55, 56.
Sapajous, performances of, 148.
Satanas, P., 59.
Savage, Dr. Thomas, 3.
Semnopithecus, 23, 28, 83.
Sentiments concerning man's
origin, 4.
Scaphoides, 111.
Scapula, 107.
Schroeder van der Kolk, M., 143.
Semnopithecinæ, 13, 83, 88.
Septum between nostrils, 50.
Sexual selection, 179.
Shin-bone, 122.
Short-tailed Indris, 70, 71.
Short-tailed Lemurs, 75.
Short-tailed Saki, 55.
Siamang, 18, 21, 27, 96, 179,
193.
Siamang, brain of, 148.
Silky monkey, 61, 64.
Silvery Gibbon, 23, 27.
Rodentia, 9.
Rolleston, Professor, 143, 145, | Skeleton of Man, 113.
149.
Skeleton of Orang, 115.
Skeleton of trunk, 93.
Skull, 97.
Skull of Chimpanzee, 99.
Skull of Lemur, 65.
Skull of Man, 99.
Skull of Monkey, 65.
Skull of Orang, 101.
Slender Lemur, 75, 77, 91, 95,
121.
Slender Loris, 175.
Simiadæ, 10, 49, 50, 83, 167, 168,
186, 187.
Simiinæ, 13, 27, 83.
Sirenia, 8.
Skeleton of Chimpanzee, 115.
Slow Lemur, 73, 75, 166.
Sonnerat, M., 81.
Specific genesis, 181.
Specific origin, 183.
Speciosus, M., 41.
i
200
INDEX.
Spider monkeys, 47, 50, 55, 56, | Troglodytes, 12, 13, 83, 84.
164.
Trunk, skeleton of, 93.
Tuberosity of ischium, 118, 119.
Tyson, 14.
Spine of ischium, 118, 119.
Spine of Scapula, 107.
Spinous processes, 96, 97.
Squirrel monkey, 60, 148.
Squirrel monkey, brain of, 148.
Sternum, 96.
Stomach, 161.
Styloid process, 103.
Succession of teeth, 160.
Supra condyloid foramen, 106.
Tibia, 113, 115, 123.
Toes, length of, 129.
Tongue, 152, 175.
Toque, 37, 41.
Trapezium, 111.
Trapezoides, 111.
Ulna, 106, 107, 113, 115.
Unciform, 111.
Ungulata, 8.
Uvula, 161.
Vaginal ridge, 98.
Value of characters, 171.
Vari, 71, 75.
Vermiform appendix, 161.
Vertebrata, 8.
Vertebræ, 93, 96.
Tail, 91.
Tails, prehensile, 49, 50, 56, 91.
Tarsier, 81, 82, 159, 179.
Tarsier, teeth of, 159.
Tarsiidæ, 69, 81, 83.
Tarsius, 81, 83.
Tarsus, 123, 126, 127.
Teeth, 155, 179.
Teeth, grinding, 50, 63, 159.
Teeth, structure of, 175.
Teeth, succession of, 160.
Temminck's monkey, 29, 33.
Temporal lobe, 138.
Thigh-bone, 121, 122, 123.
Thumb, 28, 33, 41, 42, 50, 56, Woolley-Lemur, 70.
63, 112, 117.
Virtue, 188.
Voice, 27, 56.
Vrolik, W., 144.
Wallace, Mr., 17.
Wanderoo, 37, 41.
Whales, 186.
White-handed Gibbon, 21, 27.
White-eyelid monkey, 34, 37.
White-fronted Lemur, 73, 75.
White-nosed monkey, 34, 35.
White-thighed monkey, 29, 33.
Wou-wou, 23, 27.
Wrist-bones, 109, 111, 180.
Wyman, Professor, 3.
Yarke, 59,
Yellow-breasted Sapajou, 51, 56.
Zoological position of man, 189.
LONDON: PRINTED BY WILLIAM CLOWES AND SONS, STAMFORD STREET
AND CHARING CROSS.
·
:
✰
NON
CIRCULATING
..
SKOKLE --
<>******
1
---
A
Kon
UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN
ARTES
3 9015 04923 9216
1837
VERITAS
SCIENTIA
UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN
HENRY VIGNAUD
LIBRARY