Late
CASE

ion

Pe RY Oreked pawl “4 pet ie Spey Sh RN SASSE a ee TR pea,

eras :
eas aees

n

=

rn MEST oS
es hea cia

Be raat

Sr ee ee

<

Z

a?
os lle

rim

Williams and Norgate’s Publications.
DTAVIDSON (Dr. 8.) AN INTRODUCTION TO THE OLD

Testament, Critical, Historical, and Theological, containing a Discussion
of the most important Questions belonging to the several Books. By SAMUEL
Davipson, D.D., of the University of Halle, and LL.D. Vols. I. IL. 8vo. Cloth.
1862, (‘To be completed in three vols.) each 148

DAVIDSON (Rev. A. B.) A COMMENTARY ON THE
BOOK OF JOB, grammatical and exegetical, with a translation. By
the Rev. A. B. Davipson, Hebrew Tutor in the New College, Edinburgh.
Vol.L 8yo. Cloth boards. 1862. (To be completed in two vols.) 78 6d

DAVIDSON (Rev. A. B.) OUTLINES OF HEBREW
ACCENTUATION, Prose and Poetical. Crown 8yo. Sewed. 1861 356¢

QHORE (Rev. T.) The CHURCHMAN and tho FREE
THINKER; or, a Friendly Address to the Orthodox. By the Rev.
Tomas SHORE, M.A., formerly Fellow of Wadbam College, Oxford. 8vo.
Sewed 2s 6a

JK ORBAN (The), NEWLY TRAN SLATED FROM THE
- ARABIC; with Preface, Notes and Index. The Suras arranged in Chro-
nological order. By the Rev. J. M. RopwEt1, M.A., Rector of St, Ethelburga,
Bishopsgate. Crown 8vo. Cloth. 1862 10s 62

FIALAYUDHA'S ABHIDHANARATNAMALA. A San-

skrit Vocabulary, edited with Notes and a Sanskrit-English Glossary by
Tu, Aurrecut, Professor of Sanskrit im the University of Edinburgh. 8vo.
Cloth boards. 1861 : 183

(CORMAC'S AND O’DAVOREN’S OLD IRISH GLOS-
SARIES, with the Grossary to the Calendar of Oingus, the Culdee,
edited from MSS. in the Libraries of Trinity College, Dublin, and the British
Museum, with Introduetion, Notes, &c. and Index by W. S.—-- (Uniform
with Zeuss’ Grammatica Celtica.) 8vo. Cloth. 1862 10s 64

FERGUSON (ROBERT) ON RIVER NAMES IN EUROPE.
Crown 8yo. Cloth 4s 64

MOORS HINDU PANTHEON. A new Edition from the
original copperplates. 104 plates, with descriptive letterpress, by the Rer.
A. P. Moor. Roy. 4to. Cloth boards, gilt. 1861 31s 64

KENNEDY (James) ESSAYS, ETHNOLOGICAL AND

LINGUISTIC, by the late James Kennedy, Esq., formerly iH. B. M.

Judge at the Havana. Edited with preface and notes by C. M. Kennedy, ae
78

&

8vo. Cloth, 1862

BANERIEA (K. M.} DIALOGUES ON THE HINDU
PHILOSOPHY, comprising the Nyaya, the Sankhya, and Vedant; to
which is added, A Discussion of the Authority ofthe Vedahs. By Rev. K. M.
BanerguA, Second Professor of Bishop’s College, Calcutta. 8vo. Cloth, 188

ARNETY’S LINGUISTIC ESSAYS. The Philological
Essays of the late Rev. Ricuarp Garner. Fdited, with a Memoir, by
his Sox. 8vo. Cloth beards 10s 664

—

Cog AG A nrc

fe Ope

a sninstsatitlea Sinha ny _——— eon :
ea a - = Sere =the tetas “

.
ey
So = ag ga

aan OE ATCC i

—

nine

ra al “ae

Sp gg RAN oo

Ye tdi a a

ee
MEN a). tS

Ce cui REST ROTI

*
oman

ees

~ Cloth

PIARDY (R. SPENCE) EASTERN MONACHISM Me

Williams and Norgate’s Publications.
‘W HEATLEY (H. B.) OF ANAGRAMS. A monograph treat-

ing of their History from the earliest ages to the present time ; with an
Introduction containing numerous specimens of macaronic poetry, punning
mottoes, rhopalic, shaped, equivocal, lyon, and echo verses, alliteration, acrosties,
lipograms, chronograms, logograms, palindromes, bouts rimés. 12mo. Half
morocco, top gilt : Gs

LATHAM (R. G.) PHILOLOGICAL, ETHNOLOGICAL,

and other ESSAYS. Opuscula, by R. G. Larus, M.D., F.R.S., &c.
8vo. Cloth. 1860 ; 10s 6d

N ULLER (Max) ANCIENT SANSKRIT LITERATURE

‘ivL and the Primitive Religion of the Brahmins. A History of Ancient
Sanskrit Literature as far as it illustrates the Primitive Religion of the Brahmins.

By Max Muller, M.A, Fellow of All Souls College, Oxford. 626 pp. 8vo.
Cloth ; 21s

BOERS COMPARATIVE GRAMMAR of the Sanskrit, Zend,
* Greek, Latin, Lithuanian, Gothic, German, and Slavonic Languages.
Translated by Professor Eastwick, and Edited by Professor H. H. Wilson.
3 vols. royal 8vo. Second Edition. Cloth bds. (pub. at £3. 7s 6d) 428

GiB WM. MACNAGHTEN’S PRINCIPLES OF HINDU

AND MOHAMMADAN LAW. Republished from the Principles and
Precadents of the same, by Sir Wm. Macnaghten. Edited by Dr. H. H. Wilson,
Boden Professor of Sanskrit, Oxford. 8vo. Cloth. Second Edition. 1862 6s

MORLEY LAW OF INDIA. The ‘Administration of

Justice in British India, its past History aud Present State, comprising
an account of the Laws peculiar to India, by Wirriam H. Moruey, Esq.
Royal 8vo. Cloth boards “Lbs

re 3
Wwricut (W.) GRAMMAR OF THE ARABIC LAN-
GUAGE, founded on the German work of Caspari, and edited, with
numerous additions and corrections, by Wm. Wright, Professor of Arabic in
the University of Dublin. 2 vols. 8vo. Cloth bds. lds

])®. DONALDSON’S JASHAR. New edition, with impor-
tant additions. Fragmenta Archetypa Carminum Hebraicorur in Maso-
rethico Veteris Testamenti Textu passim tessellata collegit, restituit, ordinavit,

- in unum corpus redegit, Latine exhibuit, commentarioinstruxit J. G. DoraLp-

son, 8. T. D, editio secunda, aucta et emendata. S8vo. Cloth 10s

R. DONALDSON’S CHRISTIAN ORTHODOXY recon-
ciled with the CONCLUSIONS of MODERN BIBLICAL LEARNING;
a Theological Essay, with Critical and Controversial Supplements. By Joun

Witiiam Donatpson, D.D., late Fellow of Trinity College, Cambridge. a
pose 10s

account of the Origin, Laws, Discipline, Sacred Writings, etc. efc. of

the Order of Mendicants founded by GOTAMA BUDDHA. 8yvo. Cloth
(pub. at 12s) reduced to 7s 6d

][ARDY GB. SPENCE) A MANUAL OF BUDDHISM in

i ranslated from Sin alese MSS. © 8vo. Cloth
its modern oo Alse Supdas transla’ ‘ : a oe hekie Sy

Williams and Norgate’s Publications.

[MIE PROPER NAMES OF THE OLD TESTAMENT

arranged Alphabetically from the original Text, with Historical and Geo-
graphical Illustrations, for the use of Hebrew Students and Teachers, with an
Appendix of the Hebrew and Aramaic Names in the New Testament, 8yo.
Cloth bds. 78 6d

GENESIS, THE BOOK OF, in Hebrew, with a critically re-
vised Text, various readings, and grammatical and critical Notes, &c.
By the Rev. C. H. H. Wright, M.A., Trin. Coll. Dublin. 8vo. Cloth bds. 10s 6d

po Bo n four Semitic

Versions, viz. Chaldee, Syriac, Athiopic, and Arabic. With correspond-
ing Glossaries by W. Wright, Professor of Arabic, Trin. Coll, Dublin. 8vo,
Cloth 73 6d

(COWPER (Rev. B. Harris) A SYRIAC GRAMMAR, founded
on that of Dr. Hoffmann, with additions. 8vo. Cloth 73 6d

WRicutT (Cuartes H. H.) A GRAMMAR OF THE

MODERN IRISH LANGUAGE, designed for the Use of the Classes
in the University of Dublin. By C. H. H. Wright, M.A., Trin. Coll. Dublin.
Second edition, revised and enlarged. 8vo. Sewed. 28 6d

JJURIPIDIS ION. GREEK TEXT, with Notes for Bogin-

ners, Introduction, and Questions for Examination. The Student’s First
Greek Play. By Charles Badham, D.D., Head Master of the Ed gbaston Pro-
prietary School. 8vo. Cloth 3s 6d

TEN H, SHORT LATIN SYNTAX, with copious Exercises and
“~ _ Vocabulary, by Dr. W. Ihne, Principal of Carlton Terrace School, Liver-
pool. 12mo. Cloth. 1861 38 6d

BECKER'S GERMAN GRAMMAR. A Grammar of the

German Language. By Dr. K. F. Becker, Third Edition, carefully
revised and adapted to the use of the English Student, by Dr. J. W. Frarprrs-
porrr, of the Taylor Institution, Oxford. 12mo. Cloth. 5s

WILLIAMS (Prof. Monier) THE STUDY OF SANSKRIT

in Relation to Missionary Work in India. An inaugural lecture delivered
before the University of Oxford, April 19, 1861, by Monier Williams, M.A.,
Boden Professor of Sanskrit, with Notes and Additions. 8vo. 1861 Q5

(CURETON. HISTORY OF THE MARTYRS IN PALES.

TINE, by Eusebius, Bishop of Caesarea, discovered in a very ancient
Syriac Manuscript. Edited (in Syriac) and translated into English by William
Curzton, D.D., Canon of Westminster, Member of the Imperial Institute of
France. Royal 8vo. Cloth 10s 6d

SCHN ORR’S BIBLE PICTURES. Scripture History Ilus-
\O “trated ina Series of 180 Engravings on Wood, from Original Designs by
Julius Schnorr. (With English Texts.) 3 vols. each 60 plates. Cloth bds.
gilt, 15s each. Or Complete in one vol. half morocco, gilt 408

BRENGELIL (Dr. Jon. Ars.) GNOMON NOVI TESTA-

MENTI in quo ex nativa verborum vi simplicitas, profunditas, concinnitas,
salubritas sensuum coelestium indicatur. dit. II. per filium superstitem E.
Bengel quondam curata quarto recusa adjuvante J. Steudel. Royal 8vo.
Cloth bds. 18s

*»* In ordering this book, the edition published by Winn1ams and Nor-
Gate and Nurr should be particularly specified, as a reprint of an old Edition
(1773), in every respect inferior, has been recently produced,

a

en ee ee TR ern aeons ae eee

eh ae, ig 44 ae
Cte tate

EVIDENCE

AS TO

MAN’S PLACE IN NATURE.

‘suoabung fo abayjog ywohoay ayn fo wnasnyy oy, Ue suamrods wouf suryunpy asnoysanmy “aye Aq Uap
‘(aungou Sp aban] 8D 29102 sn YoryUs Uoggry ayz fo 104] ededx—a) azrs younqou ayy fo suniborgT Wout poonpas hyynavydouboj0y

“‘VITINON) ‘LAZNVAWIHD) ‘NOMALd)
ayn fo suojnayy

EVIDENCE

AS TO

MANS PLACE IN NATURE.

BY

THOMAS HENRY HUXLEY,

FELLOW OF THE ROYAL SOCIETY.

WILLIAMS AND NORGATE,
14, HENRIETTA STREET, COVENT GARDEN, LONDON ;

AND
20, SOUTH FREDERICK STREET, EDINBURGH.
1868.

Lid @00¥Y WALYSA1

es a
Sire
Sell
<i
Qa :
OlPe
ml is
olf
a

<

< ite

\ NY A AN 3

CIS

ADVERTISEMENT TO THE READER.

Tue greater part of the substance of the following Essays
has already been published in the form of Oral Discourses,
addressed to widely different audiences, during the past three
years.

Upon the subject of the second Essay, I delivered six
Lectures to the Working Men in 1860, and two, to the
members of the Philosophical Institution of Edinburgh in
1862. The readiness with which my audience followed
my arguments, on these occasions, encourages me to hope
that I have not committed the error, into which working
men of science so readily fall, of obscuring my meaning by
unnecessary technicalities: while, the length of the period
during which the subject, under its various aspects, has been
present to my mind, may suffice to satisfy the Reader that,
my conclusions, be they right or be they wrong, have not

been formed hastily or enunciated crudely.

Lonpon : January, 1863.

iat cit

LON THE NATURAL HISTORY

OF THE

MAN-LIKE APES.

AnciEntT traditions, when tested by the severe processes of
modern investigation, commonly enough fade away into mere
dreams: but it is singular how often the dream turns out to
have been a half-waking one, presaging a reality. Ovid
foreshadowed the discoveries of the geologist: the Atlantis
was an imagination, but Columbus found a western world:
and though the quaint forms of Centaurs and Satyrs have an
existence only in the realms of art, creatures approaching
man more nearly than they in essential structure, and yet
as thoroughly brutal as the goat’s or horse’s half of the
mythical compound, are now not only known, but notorious.

I have not met
with any notice of
one of these Man-
LIKE Apes of earlier
date than that con-
tained in Pigafetta’s
“ Description of the
kingdom of Congo,”
drawn up from the
notes of a Portuguese
‘sailor, Eduardo Lo-
pez, and published
in 1598. The tenth
chapter of this work
is entitled “De Animalibus que in hac provincia reperiun-

Fic. 1.—Simiz magnatum deliciz.—De Bry, 1598.

* Rucnum Congo: hoc est Vera Duscrrptio ReGNI AFRICANI QUOD
TAM AB INCOLIS QUAM LUSITANIS CONGUS APPELLATUR, per Philippum Piga-

B

2

tur,” and contains a brief passage to the effect that “in the
Songan country, on the banks of the Zaire, there are multi-
tudes of apes, which afford great delight to the nobles by
imitating human gestures.’ As this might apply to almost
any kind of apes, I should have thought little of it, had not
the brothers De Bry, whose engravings illustrate the work,
thought fit, in their eleventh “Argumentum,” to figure two
of these ‘‘ Simiz magnatum delicie.” So much of the plate
as contains these apes is faithfully copied m the woodcut
(fig. 1), and it will be observed that they are tail-less, long-
armed, and large-eared ; and about the size of Chimpanzees.
It may be that these apes are as much figments of the imagi-
nation of the ingenious brothers as the winged, two-legged,
crocodile-headed dragon which adorns the same plate; or, on
the other hand, it may be that the artists have constructed
their drawings from some essentially faithful description of a
Gorilla or a Chimpanzee. And, in either case, though these
figures are worth a passing notice, the oldest trustworthy and
definite accounts of any animal of this kind date from the
17th century, and are due to an Englishman.

The first edition of that most amusing old book, “ Purchas
his Pilgrimage,” was published in 1613, and therein are to be
found many references to the statements of one whom
Purchas terms “ Andrew Battell (my neere neighbour, dwell-
ing at Leigh in Essex) who served under Manuel Silvera
Perera, Governor under the King of Spaine, at his city of
Saint Paul, and with him went farre into the countrey of
Angola ;’’ and again, “my friend, Andrew Battle, who lived
in the kingdom of.Congo many yeares,” and who, “upon
some quarell betwixt the Portugals (among whom he was a
sergeant of a band) and him, lived eight or nine moneths in
the woodes.” From this weather-beaten old soldier, Purchas

fettam, olim ex Edoardo Lopez acroamatis lingua Italica excerpta, num Latio
sermone donata ab August. Cassiod. Reinio. Iconibus et imaginibus rerum

memorabilium quasi vivis, opera et industria Joan. Theodori et Joan. Israelis de
Bry, fratrum exornata. Francofurti, Mpxcvim.

3

was amazed to hear “of a kinde of Great Apes, if they
might so bee termed, of the height of a man, but twice as
bigge in feature of their limmes, with strength proportion-
able, hairie ‘all over, otherwise altogether like men and
women in their whole bodilyshape.* They lived on such wilde
fruits as the trees and woods yielded, and in the night time
lodged on the trees.”’

This extract is, however, less detailed and clear in its state-
ments than a passage in the third chapter of the second part
of another work—“Purchas his Pilgrimes,’’ published in 1625,
by the same author— which has been often, though hardly ever
quite rightly, cited. The chapter is entitled, “The strange
adventures of Andrew Battell, of Leigh in Essex, sent by the
Portugals prisoner to Angola, who lived there and in the adioin-
ing regions neere eighteene yeeres.” And the sixth section of
this chapter is headed—‘“ Of the Provinces of Bongo, Ca-
longo, Mayombe, Manikesocke, Motimbas: of the Ape Mon~
ster Pongo, their hunting: Idolatries; and divers other

observations.” :

2 Ts province (Calongo) wad the east bordereth
upon Bongo, and toward the north upon Mayombe, which
is nineteen leagues from Longo along the coast.

“This province of Mayombe is all woods and groves, so
overgrowne that a man may travaile twentie days in the
shadow without any sunne or heat. Here is no kind of
corne nor graine, so that the people liveth onely upon
plantanes and roots of sundrie sorts, very good; and nuts;
nor any kinde of tame cattell, nor hens.

“ But they have great store of elephant’s flesh, which they
greatly esteeme, and many kinds of wild beasts; and great
store of fish, Here is a great sandy bay, two leagues to the
northward of Cape Negro,+ which is the port of Mayombe.
Sometimes the Portugals lade logwood in this bay. Here is

* “Except this that their legges had no calves.”—[Ed, 1626.] And in a
marginal note, “ These great apes are called Pongo’s.”
} Purchas’ note.—Cape Negro is in 16 degrees south of the line.

B 2

en ee ee marae Het mone

4.

a great river, called Banna: in the winter it hath no barre,
because the generall winds cause a great sea. But when the
sunne hath his south declination, then a boat may goe in; for
then it is smooth because of the raine. This river is very
great, and hath many ilands and people dwelling in them.
The woods are so covered with baboones, monkies, apes and
parrots, that it will feare any man to travaile in them alone,
Here are also two kinds of monsters, which are common in
these woods, and very dangerous.

“The greatest of these two monsters is called Pongo in
their language, and the lesser is called Engeco. This Pongo
is in all proportion like a man; but that he is more like a
giant in stature than a man; for he is very tall, and hath a
man’s face, hollow-eyed, with long haire upon his browes.
His face and eares are without haire, and his hands also.
His bodie is full of haire, but not very thicke ; and it is of a
dunnish colour.

“He differeth not from a man but in his legs; for they have
no calfe. Hee goeth alwaies upon his legs, and carrieth his
hands clasped in the nape of his necke when he goeth upon
the ground. They sleepe in the trees, and build shelters for
the raine. They feed upon fruit that they find in the woods,
and upon nuts, for they eate no kind of flesh. They cannot
speake, and have no understanding more than a beast. The
people of the countrie, when they travaile in the woods
make fires where they sleepe in the night; and in the
morning when they are gone, the Pongoes will come and sit
about the fire till it goeth out; for they have no understand-
ing to lay the wood together. They goe many together and
kill many negroes that travaile in the woods. Many times
they fall upon the elephants which come to feed where they
be, and so beate them with their clubbed fists, and pieces of
wood, that they will runne roaring away from them. Those
Pongoes are never taken alive because they are so strong,
that ten men cannot hold one of them; but yet they take
many of their young ones with poisoned arrowes. -

5

‘The young Pongo hangeth on his mother’s belly with his
hands fast clasped about her, so that when the countrie
people kill any of the females they take the young one,
which hangeth fast upon his mother. ©

“When they die among themselves, they cover ‘the dead

with great heaps of boughs and wood, which is commonly
found in the forest.” *

It does not appear difficult to identify the exact region of
which Battell speaks. Longo is doubtless the name of the
place usually spelled Loango on our maps. Mayombe still

lies some nineteen leagues northward from Loango, along the —
coast; and Cilongo or Kilonga, Manikesocke, and Motimbas |

are yet registered by geographers. The Cape Negro of Bat-
tell, however, cannot be the modern Cape Negro in 16° S.,
since Loango itself is in 4° S. latitude. On the other hand,
the “great river called Banna” corresponds very well with
the “Camma” and “ Fernand Vas,” of modern geographers,
which form'a great delta on this part of the African coast.
Now this “Camma™” country is situated about a degree and
a-half south of the Equator, while a few miles to the north

of the line lies the Gaboon, and a degree or so north of |

that, the Money River—both well known to modern natu-
ralists as localities where the largest of man-like Apes has
peen obtained. Moreover, at the present day, the word
Engeco, or N’schego, is applied by the natives of these
regions to the smaller of the two great Apes which inhabit
them; so that there can be no rational doubt that Andrew
Battell spoke of that which he knew of his own knowledge,
or, at any rate, by immediate report from the natives of

* Purchas’ marginal note, p. 982 :—“ The Pongo a giant ape. He told me in
conference with him, that one of these Pongoes tooke a negro boy of his which
lived a moneth with them. For they hurt not those which they surprise at
unawares, except they look on them; which he avoyded. He said their highth
was like a man’s, but their bignesse twice as great. I saw the negro boy. What
the other monster should be he hath forgotten to relate; and these papers came
to my hand since his death, which, otherwise, in my often conferences, I might
have learned. Perhaps he meaneth the Pigmy Pongo killers mentioned.”

6

Western Africa. The “Engeco,” however, is that “ other
monster”? whose nature Battell “forgot to relate,” while the
name ‘“* Pongo”’—applied to the animal whose characters and
habits are so fully and carefully described—seems to have
died out, at least in its primitive form and _ signification.
Indeed, there is evidence that not only in Battell’s time, but
up to a very recent date, it was used in a totally different
sense from that in which he employs it.
_ For example, the second chapter of Purchas’ work, which
a have just quoted, contains “ A Description and Historicall
Declaration of the Golden Kingdom of Guinea, &c. &c.
Translated from the Dutch, and compared also with the
Latin,” wherein it is stated (p. 986) that—
_ “The River Gaboon lyeth about fifteen miles northward
from Rio de Angra, and eight miles northward from Cape
de Lope Gonsalvez (Cape Lopez), and is right under the
Equinoctial line, about fifteene miles from St. Thomas, and
is a great land, well and easily to be knowne. At the mouth
of the river there lieth a sand, three or foure fathoms deepe,
whereon it beateth mightily with the streame which runneth
out of the river into the sea. This river, in the mouth
thereof, is at least four miles broad ; but when you are about
the Iland called Pongo, it is not above two miles broad.
On both sides the river there standeth many trees.
ex The Iland called Pongo, which hath a
monstrous high hill,”
The French naval officers, whose letters are appended to
the late M. Isidore Geoff. Saint Hilaire’s excellent essay on
the Gorilla,* note in similar terms the width of the Gaboon,
the trees that line its banks down to the water’s edge, and the
strong current that sets out of it. They describe two islands
in its estuary ;—one low, called Perroquet; the other high,
presenting three conical hills, called Coniquet; and one of
them, M. Franquet, expressly states that, formerly, the Chief
of Coniquet was called Meni-Pongo, meaning thereby Lord

* Archives du Museum, Tome X.

of Pongo; and that the N’Pongues (as, in agreement with
Dr. Savage, he affirms the natives call themselves) term the
estuary of the Gaboon itself N’Pongo.

It is so easy, in dealing with savages, to misunderstand

their applications of words to things, that one is at first in-

clined to suspect Battell of having confounded the name of
this region, where his “ greater monster” still abounds, with

the name of the animal itself. But he is so right about

other matters (including the name of the “lesser monster ’ Z5

that one is loth to suspect the old traveller of error; and, on *

the other hand, we shall find that a voyager of a hundred
years’ later date speaks of the name “ Boggoe,” as applied to

a great Ape, by the inhabitants of quite another part

of Africa—Sierra Leone.

But I must leave this question to be settled by philologers
and travellers; and I should hardly have dwelt'so long upon
it except for the curious part played by this word ‘ Pongo’ in
the later history of the man-like Apes. re

The generation which succeeded Battell saw the first of the
Homo Sylveftris. man-like Apes which was
res a ever brought to Europe, or,

at any rate, whose visit found
a historian. In the third
book of Tulpius’ “ Observa-
tiones Medice,” published
in 1641, the 56th chapter
or section is devoted to what
he calls Satyrus indicus,
‘called by the Indians
Orang-autang, or Man-of-
the Woods, and by the Afri-
cans Quoias Morrou.’ He
as gives a very good figure,
Unies = evidently from the life, of
Fig, 2—The Orang of Tulpius, 1641. the specimen of this animal,

“ nostra memoria ex AngolA delatum,” presented to Frederick

8

Heury Prince of Orange. Tulpius says it was as big as a
child of three years old, and as stout as one of six years: and
‘that its back was covered with black hair. It is plainly a
young Chimpanzee.

In the meanwhile, the existence of other, Asiatic, man-like
Apes became known, but at first in a very mythical fashion.
Thus Bontius (1658) gives an altogether fabulous and ridi-
culous account and figure of an animal which he calls
“Orang-outang”; and though he says, “vidi Ego cujus
effigiem hic exhibeo,” the said effigies (see fig. 6 for Hoppius’
copy of it) is nothing but a very hairy woman of rather
comely aspect, and with proportions and feet wholly human,
The judicious English anatomist, Tyson, was justified in say-
ing of this description by Bontius, “I confess I do mistrust
the whole representation.”

Tt is to the last mentioned writer, and his coadjutor
Cowper, that we owe the first account of a man-like ape
which has any pretensions to scientific accuracy and com-
pleteness. The treatise entitled, “ Orang-outang, sive Homo
Sylvestris ; or the Anatomy of a Pygmie compared with that
of a Monkey, an Ape, and a Man,” published by the Royal
Society in 1699, is, indeed, a work of remarkable merit, and
has, in some respects, served as a model to subsequent in-
quirers, This “ Pygmie,”’ Tyson tells us, “was brought
from Angola, in Africa; but was first taken a great deal
higher up the country;” its hair “was of a coal-black
colour, and strait,” and “when it went asa quadruped on
all four, ’twas awkwardly ; not placing the palm of the hand
flat to the ground, but it walk’d upon its knuckles, as I
observed it to do when weak and had not strength enough to
support its body.”—“ From the top of the head to the heel
of the foot, in a strait line, it measured twenty-six inches.”

These characters, even without Tyson’s good figures
(figs. 3 and 4), would have been sufficient to prove his “ Pyg-
mie” to be a young Chimpanzee. But the opportunity of
examining the skeleton of the very animal Tyson anatomised

9

having most unexpectedly presented itself to me, 1 am able
to bear independent testimony to its being a veritable Trog-

ip

Fries. 3 & 4.—The ‘ Pygmie’ reduced from Tyson’s figures 1 and 2, 1699.

lodytes niger,* though still very young. Although fully
appreciating the resemblances between his Pygmie and Man,
Tyson by no means overlooked the differences between the
two, and he”concludes his memoir by summing up first, the
points in which “the Ourang-outang or Pygmie more re-
sembled a Man than Apes and Monkeys do,” under forty-seven
distinct heads; and then giving, in thirty-four similar brief
paragraphs, the respects in which “the Ourang-outang or

* T am indebted to Dr. Wright, of Cheltenham, whose paleontological labours
are so well known, for bringing this interesting relic to my knowledge. Tyson’s
granddaughter, it appears, married Dr. Allardyce, a physician of repute in
Cheltenham, and brought, as part of her dowry, the skeleton of the ‘ Pygmie.’
Dr. Allardyce presented it to the Cheltenham Museum, and, through the good
offices of my friend Dr. Wright, the ‘authorities of the Museum have permitted
me to borrow, what is, perhaps, its most remarkable ornament.

10

Pygmie differ’d from a Man and resembled more the Ape and
Monkey kind.’

After a careful survey of the literature of the subject extant
in his time, our author arrives at the conclusion that his
“ Pygmie”’ is identical neither with the Orangs of Tulpius and
Bontius, nor with the Quoias Morrou of Dapper (or rather of
Tulpius), the Barris of d’Arcos, nor with the Pongo of Battell ;
but that it is a species of ape probably identical with the
Pygmies of the Ancients, and, says Tyson, though it “does so
much resemble a Man in many of its parts, more than any of
the ape kind, or any other animal in the world, that I know
of: yet by no means do I look upon it as the product of a mixt
generation— tis a Brute-Animal sui generis, and a particular
species of Ape.”

The name of “Chimpanzee,” by which one of the African
Apes is now so well known, appears to have come into use
in the first half of the eighteenth century, but the only im-
portant addition made, in that period, to our acquaintance
with the man-like apes of Africa is contained in “A New

Voyage to Guinea,” by William Smith, which bears the

date 1744,
In describing the animals of Sierra Leone, p. 51, this

writer says :—

“T shall next describe a strange sort of animal, called by
the white men in this country Mandrill,* but why it is so
called I know not, nor did I ever hear the name before,
neither can those who call them so tell, except it be for their
near resemblance of a human creature, though nothing at all

* “Mandrill” seems to signify a “man-like ape,” the word “ Drill” or “ Dril”
having been anciently employed in England to denote an Ape or Baboon. Thus
in the fifth edition of Blount’s “ Glossographia, or a Dictionary interpreting the
hard words of whatsoever language now used in our refined F English tongue .
very useful for all such as desire to understand what they read,” published ; in
1681, I find, “ Dril—a stone-cutter’s tool wherewith he bores little holes in
marble, &e. Also a large overgrown Ape and Baboon, so called.” “ Drill” is
used in the same sense in Charleton’s “ Onomasticon Zoicon,” 1668. The sin-
gular etymology of the word given by Buffon seems hardly a probable one.

Il

like an Ape. Their bodies, when full grown, are as big in
circumference as a middle-sized man’s—their legs much
shorter, and their feet larger; their arms and hands in pro-
portion. The head is monstrously big, and the face broad.
and flat, without any other hair but the eyebrows; the nose
very small, the mouth wide, and the lips thin. The face,
which is covered by a white skin, is monstrously ugly, being

Fie. 5.—Facsimile of William Smith’s figure of the ‘ Mandrill,” 1744,

all over wrinkled as with old age; the teeth broad and yel-
low; the hands have no more hair than the face, but the
same white skin, though all the rest of the body is covered
with long black hair, like a bear. They never go upon all-
fours, like apes; but cry, when vexed or teased, just like chil-
Wis + ae ea es

“When I was at Sherbro, one Mr. Cummerbus, whom I
shall have occasion hereafter to mention, made me a present
of one of these strange animals, which are called by the
natives Boggoe: it was a she-cub, of six months’ age, but
even then larger than a Baboon. I gave it in charge to one
of the slaves, who knew how to feed and nurse it, being a
very tender sort of animal; but whenever I went off the deck

12

the sailors began to teaze it—some loved to sce its tears and
hear it cry; others hated its snotty-nose; one who hurt it,
being checked by the negro that took care of it, told the slave
he was very fond of his country-woman, and asked him if he
should not like her for a wife? To which the slave very
readily replied, ‘No, this no my wife; this a white woman—
this fit wife for you” This unlucky wit of the negro’s, I
fancy, hastened its death, for next morning it was found dead
under the windlass.”

William Smith’s ‘Mandrill, or ‘ Boggoe,’ as his descrip-
tion and figure testify, was, without doubt, a Chimpanzee.

Linnzus knew nothing, of his own observation, of the man-
like Apes of either Africa or Asia, but a dissertation by his
pupil Hoppius in the “ Ameenitates Academicz ” (VI. §An-
thropomorpha’) may be regarded as embodying his views
respecting these animals,

The dissertation is illustrated by a plate, of which the ac-
companying woodcut, fig. 6,is a reduced copy. The figures are

entitled (from left to right) 1. Troglodyta Bontii; 2. Lucifer
Aldrovandi ; 3. Satyrus Tulpii; 4. Pygmeus Edwardi. The
first is a bad copy of Bontius’ fictitious < Ourang-outang,’ in
whose existence, however, Linnzus appears to have fully
believed; for in the standard edition of the « Systema

Fic. 6.—The Anthropomorpha of Linneus,

13

Nature,” it is enumerated as a second species of Homo;
“ H. nocturnus.” Lucifer Aldrovandi is a copy of a figure in
- Aldrovandus, ‘De Quadrupedibus digitatis viviparis,’ Lib. 2,
" p. 249. (1645) entitled “ Cercopithecus forme rare Barbilius
vocatus et originem a china ducebat.” Hoppius is of opinion
that this may be one of that cat-tailed people, of whom Nicolaus
- Ko6ping affirms that they eat a boat’s crew, “ gubernator

navis” and all! In the “ Systema Nature”? Linnzeus calls it |

in a note, Homo caudatus, and seems inclined to regard it as ) |
a third species of man. According to Temminck, Satyrus It
Tulpii is a copy of the figure of a Chimpanzee published by
Scotin in 1738, which I have not seen. It is the Satyrus
indicus of the “ Systema Nature,” and is regarded by Lin-
nus as possibly a distinct species from Satyrus sylvestris. i

The last, named Pygmeus Edwardi, is copied from the figure
of a young “ Man of the Woods,” or true Orang-Utan, given
in Edwards’ ‘ Gleanings of Natural History,’ (1758).

Buffon was more fortunate than his great rival. Not only
had he the rare opportunity of examining a young Chim-
panzee in the living state, but he became possessed of an
adult Asiatic man-like Ape—the first and the last adult speci-
men of any of these animals brought to Europe for many years.
With the valuable assistance of Daubenton, Buffon gave an
excellent description of this creature, which, from its singular
proportions, he termed the long-armed Ape, or Gibbon. It
is the modern Hylobates lar.

Thus when, in 1766, Buffon wrote the fourteenth volume

of his great work, he was personally familiar with the young
of one kind of African man-like Ape, and with the adult of
an Asiatic species—while the Orang-Utan and the Man-
drill of Smith were known to him by report. Furthermore,
the Abbé Prevost had translated.a good deal of Purchas’
Pilgrims into French, in his ‘ Histoire générale des Voyages’
(1748), and there Buffon found a version of Andrew Battell’s
account of the Pongo and the Engeco. All these data Buffon
attempts to weld together into harmony in his chapter en-

S,

14

titled “‘ Les Orang-outangs ou le Pongo et le Jocko.” To this
title the following note is appended :— :

“Orang-outang nom de cet animal aux Indes orientales : Pongo nom de cet
animal a Lowando Province de Congo.

“ Jocko, Enjocko, nom de cet animal 4 Congo que nous avons adopté. Hn
est Particle que nous avons retranché,” -

Thus it was that Andrew Battell’s “ Engeco” became meta-
morphosed into “Jocko,” and, in thelatter shape, was spread all
over the world, in consequence of the extensive popularity of
Buffon’s works. The Abbé Prevost and Buffon between them
however, did a good deal more disfigurement to Battell’s sober
account than ‘cutting off an article” Thus Battell’s state-
ment that the Pongos “ cannot speake, and have no under-
standing more than a beast,” is rendered by Buffon “ quil ne
peut parler guoiqu’il ait plus d’entendement que les autres ani-
maux;” and again, Purchas’ affirmation, “He told me in
conference with him, that one of these Pongos tooke a negro
boy of his which lived a moneth with them,” stands in the
French version, “un pongo lui enleva un petit negre qui
passa un an entier dans la societé de ces animaux.”

_. After quoting the account of the great Pongo, Buffon justly

remarks, that all the ‘ Jockos’ and ‘ Orangs’ hitherto brought
_ to Europe were young; and he suggests that, in their adult
condition, they might be as big as the Pongo or ‘great Orang;’
so that, provisionally, he regarded the Jockos, Orangs, and
Pongos as all of one species. And perhaps this was as much
as the state of knowledge at the time warranted. But how it
came about that Buffon failed to perceive the similarity of
Smith’s ‘Mandrill’ to his own ‘Jocko,’ and confounded the
former with so totally different a creature as the blue-faced
Baboon, is not so easily intelligible. —-

_ Twenty years later Buffon changed his opinion,* and ex-
pressed his belief that the Orangs constituted a genus with two
species,—a large one, the Pongo of Battell, and a small one, the
Jocko: that the small one (Jocko) is the East Indian Orang ;

* Histoire Naturelle, Suppl. tome 7éme, 1789.

15

and that the young animals from Africa, observed by himself

and Tulpius, are simply young Pongos.
In the meanwhile, the Dutch naturalist, Vosmaer, gave, in
1778, a very good account and figure of a young Orang,
brought alive to Holland, and his countryman, the famous
anatomist, Peter Camper, published (1779) an essay on the
~ Orang-Utan of similar value to that of Tyson on the Chim-
panzee. He dissected several females and a male, all of
which, from the state of their skeleton and their dentition,
he justly supposes to have been young. However, judging
by the analogy of man, he concludes that they could not have
exceeded four feet in height in the adult condition. Further-
more, he is very clear as to the specific distinctness of the
true East Indian Orang.

‘“‘The Orang,” says he, ‘differs not only from the Pigmy
of Tyson and from the Orang of Tulpius by its peculiar colour
and its long toes, but also by its whole external form. Its
arms, its hands, and its feet are longer, while the thumbs, on
the contrary, are much shorter, and the great toes much
smaller in proportion.”* And again, “The true Orang,
that is to say, that of Asia, that of Borneo, is consequently
not the Pithecus, or tail-less Ape, which the Greeks, and
especially Galen, have described. It is neither the Pongo
nor the Jocko, nor the Orang of Tulpius, nor the Pigmy of
Tyson,—it is an animal of a peculiar species, as I shall
prove in the clearest manner by the organs of voice and the
skeleton in the following chapters,” (1. c. p. 64).

A few years later, M. Radermacher, who held a high office
in the Government of the Dutch dominions in India, and
was an active member of the Batavian Society of Arts and
Sciences, published, in the second part of the Transactions of
that Society,+ a Description of the Island of Borneo, which
was written between the years 1779 and 1781, and, among

* Camper, Ciuvres, I., p. 56.
{ Verhandelingen van het Bataviaasch Genootschap. Tweede Deel. Derde
Druk. 1826.

Se SS ag a

ee

16

much other interesting matter, contains some notes upon the
Orang. The small sort of Orang-Utan, viz. that of Vosmaer
and of Edwards, he says, is found only in Borneo, and chiefly
about Banjermassing, Mampauwa, and Landak. Of these
he had seen some fifty during his residence in the Indies ; but
none exceeded 23 feet in length. The larger sort, often re-
garded as chimera, continues Radermacher, would, perhaps
long have remained so, had it not been for the exertions of
the Resident at Rembang, M. Palm, who, on returning from
Landak towards Pontiana, shot one, and forwarded it to
Batavia in spirit, for transmission to Kurope.

Palm’s letter describing the capture runs thus:—* Here-
with I send your Excellency, contrary toall expectation (since
Jong ago I offered more than a hundred ducats to the natives
for an Orang-Utan of four or five feet high) an Orang
which I heard of this morning about eight o’clock. For a
long time we did our best to take the frightful beast alive in
the dense forest about half way to Landak. We forgot even
to eat, so anxious were we not to let him escape; but it was
necessary to take care he did not revenge himself, as he kept
continually breaking off heavy pieces of wood and green
branches, and dashing them at us. This game lasted till four
o’clock in the afternoon, when we determined to shoot him ;
in which I succeeded very well, and indeed better than I ever
shot from a boat before; for the bullet went just into the side
of his chest, so that he was not much damaged. We got him
into the prow still living, and bound him fast, and next
morning he died of his wounds. All Pontiana came on
board to see him when we arrived.” Palm gives his height
from the head to the heel as 49 inches.

A very intelligent German officer, Baron Von Wurmb, who
at this time held a post in the Dutch Hast India service, and
was Secretary of the Batavian Society, studied this animal,
and his careful description of it, entitled “ Beschrijving van
der Groote Borneosche Orang-outang of de Oost-Indische
Pongo,” is contained in the same volume of the Batavian

17

Society’s Transactions. After Von Wurmb had drawn up his
description he states, in a letter dated Batavia, Feb. 18, 1781,*
that the specimen was sent to Europe in brandy to be placed
in the collection of the Prince of Orange; “unfortunately,”
he continues, “we hear that the ship has been wrecked.”
Von Wurmb died in the course of the year 1781, the letter
~ in which this passage occurs being the last he wrote; but in
his posthumous papers, published in the fourth part of the
Transactions of the Batavian Society, there isa brief descrip-
tion, with measurements, of a female Pongo four feet high.
Did either of these original specimens, on which Von
Wurmb’s descriptions are based, ever reach Europe? It is
commonly supposed that they did; but I doubt the fact.
For, appended to the memoir “ De l’Ourang-outang,” in the
collected edition of Camper’s works, Tome I., pp. 64-66, is a
note by Camper himself, referring to Von Wurmb’s papers, and
continuing thus :—‘ Heretofore, this kind of ape had never
‘been known in Europe. Radermacher has had the kindness

WESLEY Sea

Fig. 7.—The Pongo Skull, sent by Radermacher to Camper, after Camper’s
original sketches, as reproduced by Luce.

to send me the skull of one of these animals, which measured
fifty-three inches, or four feet five inches, in height. I have

* “Briefe des Herrn vy. Wurmb und des H. Baron von Wollaogen. Gotha,
1794.”

*

Cc

————

|
1
'
f
1

i en

}
d

18

sent some sketches of it to M. Soemmering at Mayence,
which are better calculated, however, to give an idea of the
form than of the real size of the parts.”

These sketches have been reproduced by Fischer and by
Luce, and bear date 1783, Soemmering having received
them in 1784. Had either of Von Wurmb’s specimens
reached Holland, they would hardly have been unknown at this
time to Camper, who, however, goes on to say :—‘ It appears
that since this, some more of these monsters have been cap-
tured, for an entire skeleton, very badly set up, which had
been sent to the Museum of the Prince of Orange, and which
I saw only on the 27th of June, 1784, was more than four feet
high. I examined this skeleton again on the 19th December,
1785, after it had been excellently put to rights by the
ingenious Onymus.”

It appears evident, then, that this skeleton, which is doubt-
less that which has always gone by the name of Wurmb’s
Pongo, is not that of the animal described by him, though
unquestionably similar in all essential points.

Camper proceeds to note some of the most important features
of this skeleton; promises to describe it in detail by-and-
bye; and is evidently in doubt as to the relation of this
great ‘Pongo’ to his “ petit Orang.”

The promised further investigations were never carried
out; and so it happened that the Pongo of Von Wurmb took
its place by the side of the Chimpanzee, Gibbon, and Orang as
a fourth and colossal species of man-like Ape. And indeed
nothing could look much less like the Chimpanzees or the
Orangs, then known, than the Pongo; for all the specimens
of Chimpanzee and Orang which had been observed were
small of stature, singularly human in aspect, gentle and docile ;
while Wurmb’s Pongo was a monster almost twice their size,
of vast strength and fierceness, and very brutal in expression ;
its great projecting muzzle, armed with strong teeth, being
further disfigured by the outgrowth of: the cheeks into fleshy
lobes.

m .

ou

Eventually, in accordance with the usual marauding habits
of the Revolutionary armies, the ‘ Pongo’ skeleton was carried.
away from Holland into France, and notices of it, expressly

‘intended to demonstrate its entire distinctness from the
Orang and its affinity with the baboons, were given, in 1798,

by Geoffroy St. Hilaire and Cuvier.
Even in Cuvier’s “Tableau Elementaire,’ and in the first

edition of his great work, the “Regne Animal,” the ‘ Pongo’ —

is classed as a species of Baboon. However, so early as
1818, it appears that Cuvier saw reason to alter this opinion,
and to adopt the view suggested several years before by
Blumenbach,* and after him by Tilesius, that the Bornean
Pongo is simply an adult Orang. In 1824, Rudolphi de-
monstrated, by the condition of the dentition, more fully and

completely than had been done by his predecessors, that the

Orangs described up to that time were all young animals, and
that the skull and teeth of the adult would probably be such
as those seen in the Pongo of Wurmb. In the second edition
of. the ‘Regne Animal’ (1829), Cuvier infers, from the
‘proportions of all the parts’ and ‘the arrangements of the
foramina and sutures of the head,’ that the Pongo is the adult
of the Orang-Utan, ‘at least of a very closely allied species,’
and this conclusion was eventually placed beyond all doubt
by Professor Owen’s Memoir published in the ‘ Zoological
Transactions’ for 1835, and by Temminck in his ‘ Mono-
graphies de Mammalogic.2 Temminck’s memoir is remark-
able for the completeness of the evidence which it affords as
to the modification which the form of the Orang undergoes
according to age and sex. Tiedemann first published an
account of the brain of the young Orang, while Sandifort,
Miiller and Schlegel, described the muscles and the viscera
of the adult, and gave the earliest detailed and trustworthy
history of the habits of the great Indian Ape in a state of

* See Blumenbach, “Abbildungen Naturhistorichen Gegenstinde,” No. 12,

1810; and Tilesius, “ Naturhistoriche Friichte der ersten Kaiserlich-Russischen

Erdumsegelung,” p. 115, 1813.
oe

ee

20

nature; and as important additions have been made by later
observers, we are at this moment better acquainted with the
adult of the Orang-Utan, than with that of any of the other
greater man-like Apes.

It is certainly the Pongo of Wurmb ;* and it is as certainly
not the Pongo of Battell, seeing that the Orang-Utan is
entirely confined to the great Asiatic islands of Borneo and
Sumatra.

And while the progress of discovery thus cleared up the
history of the Orang, it also became established that the only
other man-like Apes in the eastern world were the various
species of Gibbon—Apes of smaller stature, and therefore
attracting less attention than the Orangs, though they are
spread over a much wider range of country, and are hence
more accessible to observation.

Although the geographical area inhabited by the ‘ Pongo’
and ‘Engeco’ of Battell is so much nearer to Europe than that
in which the Orang and Gibbon are found, our acquaintance
with the African Apes has been of slower growth; indeed, it
is only within the last few years that the truthful story of
the old English adventurer has been rendered fully intelli-
gible. It was not until 1835 that the skeleton of the adult
Chimpanzee became known, by the publication of Professor
Owen’s above-mentioned very excellent memoir “On the
osteology of the Chimpanzee and Orang,” in the Zoological
Transactions—a memoir which, by the accuracy of its de-
scriptions, the carefulness of its comparisons, and the excel-
lence of its figures, made an epoch in the history of our
knowledge of the bony framework, not only of the Chim-
panzee, but of all the anthropoid Apes.

By the investigations herein detailed, it became evident
that the old Chimpanzee acquired a size and aspect as different
from those of the young known to Tyson, to Buffon, and to

* Speaking broadly and without prejudice to the question, whether there
be more than one species of Orang.

21

_ Traill, as those of the old Orang from the young Orang ; and
the subsequent very important researches of Messrs. Savage ¥
and Wyman, the American missionary and anatomist, have bi

‘not only confirmed this conclusion, but have added many |
new details.*
One of the most interesting among the many valuable
' discoveries made by Dr. Thomas Savage is the fact, that the
natives in the Gaboon country at the present day, apply to
the Chimpanzee a name—“ Enché-eko ”—which is obviously
identical with the “Engeko” of Battell; a discovery
which has been confirmed by all later inquirers. Battell’s
“lesser monster” being thus proved to be a veritable
Fr existence, of course a strong presumption arose that his
“ oreater monster,” the ‘Pongo,’ would sooner or later be
discovered. And, indeed, a modern traveller, Bowdich, had,
in 1819, found strong evidence, among the natives, of the —
existence of a second great Ape, called the ‘Ingena,’ “five
feet high, and four across the shoulders,’ the builder of a
rude house, on the outside of which it slept.

In 1847, Dr. Savage had the good fortune to make another
and most important addition to our knowledge of the man-like
Apes; for, being unexpectedly detained at the Gaboon river,
he saw in the house of the Rev. Mr. Wilson, a missionary
resident there, “a skull represented by the natives to be a
monkey-like animal, remarkable for its size, ferocity, and
habits.” From the contour of the skull, and the information
| derived from several intelligent natives, “I was induced,” says
| Dr. Savage, (using the term Orang in its old general sense)

“to believe that it belonged to a new species of Orang. I
expressed this opinion to Mr. Wilson, with a desire for
\ further investigation; and, if possible, to decide the point by

* See “Observations on the external characters and habits of the Troglodytes \ i
niger, by Thomas N. Savage, M.D., and on its organization, by Jeffries Wyman, \ i
M.D.,” Boston Journal of Natural History, Vol. IV. 1843-4; and “ External F
characters, habits, and osteology of Troglodytes Gorilla,” by the same authors, |
ibid, Vol. V. 1847.

os

=

the inspection of a specimen alive or dead.” The result of
the combined exertions of Messrs. Savage and Wilson was not
only the obtaining of a very full account of the habits of this
new creature, but a still more important service to science,
the enabling the excellent American anatomist already men-

tioned, Professor Wyman, to describe, from ample materials,
the distinctive osteological characters of the new form. This
animal was called by the natives of the Gaboon “ Engé-ena,”
a name obviously identical with the “Ingena” of Bowdich ;
and Dr. Savage arrived at the conviction that this last
discovered of all the great Apes was the long-sought ‘ Pongo’
of Battell.

The justice of this conclusion, indeed, is beyond doubt—
for not only does the ‘Engé-ena’ agree with Battell’s ““oreater
monster” in its hollow eyes, its great stature, and its dun or
iron-grey colour, but the only other man-like Ape which in-
habits these latitudes—the Chimpanzee—is at once identified,
‘by its smaller size, as the “lesser monster,” and is excluded
from any possibility of being the ‘Pongo,’ by the fact that it
is black and not dun, to say nothing of the important cir-
cumstance already mentioned that it still retains the name
of ‘ Engeko, or ‘ Enché-eko,’ by which Battell knew it.

In seeking for a specific name for the ‘Enge-ena,’ however,
Dr. Savage wisely avoided the much misused ‘ Pongo’; but
finding in the ancient Periplus of Hanno the word “Gorilla”
applied to certain hairy savage people, discovered by the
Carthaginian voyager in an island on the African coast, he
attached the specific name “Gorilla” to his new ape, whence
arises its present well-known appellation. But Dr. Savage,
more cautious than some of his successors, by no means
identifies his ape with Hanno’s ‘wild men’ He merely says
that the latter were “probably one of the species of the
Orang ;” and I quite agree with M. Brullé, that there is no
ground for identifying the modern ‘ Gorilla’? with that of the
Carthaginian admiral.

Since the memoir of Savage and Wyman was published,

23

the skeleton of the Gorilla has been investigated by Professor
Owen and by the late Professor Duvernoy, of the Jardin des
Plantes, the latter having further supplied a valuable account
‘of the muscular system and of many of the other soft parts ;
while African missionaries and travellers have confirmed and
expanded the account originally given of the habits of this

- great man-like Ape, which has had the singular fortune of
being the first to be made known to the general world and
the last to be scientifically investigated.

Two centuries and a half have passed away since Battell
told his stories about the ‘ greater’ and the ‘lesser monsters’
to Purchas, and it has taken nearly that time to arrive at the
clear result that there are four distinct kinds of Anthropoids
—in Eastern Asia, the Gibbons and the Orangs; in Western
Africa, the Chimpanzees and the Gorilla.

The man-like Apes, the history of whose discovery has

just been detailed, have certain characters of structure and of :

distribution in common. Thus they all have the same number
of teeth as man—possessing four incisors, two canines, four
false molars, and six true molars in each jaw, or 32 teeth in

all, in the adult condition; while the milk dentition consists.

of 20 teeth—or four incisors, two canines, and four molars in
each jaw. They are what are called catarrhine Apes—that
is, their nostrils have a narrow partition and look downwards ;
and, furthermore, their arms are_always longer than their
legs, the difference being sometimes greater and sometimes
less; so that if the four were arranged in the order of the
length of their arms in proportion to that of their legs, we
should have this series—Orang (14—1), Gibbon (14—1),
Gorilla (14—1), Chimpanzee (1j;5;—1). In all, the fore limbs
are terminated by hands, provided with longer or shorter
thumbs; while the great toe of the foot, always smaller than
in Man, is far more moveable than in him and can be opposed,
like a thumb, to the rest of the foot. None of these apes have
tails, and none of them possess the cheek-pouches common

See ee

eeeeceeeeaeerenaateneeeeaatae

=

==

FEL

Sa

oT

ae ——

24

among monkeys. Finally, they are all inhabitants of the old
world.

The Gibbons are the smallest, slenderest, and longest-
limbed of the man-like apes: their arms are longer in pro-
portion to their bodies than those of any of the other man-
like Apes, so that they can touch the ground when erect ;
their hands are longer than their feet, and they are the only
Anthropoids which possess callosities like the lower monkeys.
They are variously coloured. The Orangs have arms which

, reach to the ankles in the erect position of the animal ; their

thumbs and great toes are very short, and their feet are longer
than their hands. They are covered with reddish-brown hair,

and the sides of the face, in adult males, are commonly pro-
duced into two crescentic, flexible excrescences, like fatty tu-
mours, The Chimpanzees have arms which reach below the
knees ; they have large thumbs and great toes, their hands are
longer than their feet, and their hair is black, while the skin of
the face is pale. The Gorilla, lastly, has arms which reach to
the middle of the leg, large thumbs and great toes, feet longer
than the hands, a black face, and dark-grey or dun hair,

For the purpose which I have at present in view, itis un-
necessary that I should enter into any further minutize
respecting the distinctive characters of the genera and species
into which these man-like Apes are divided by naturalists.
Suffice it to say, that the Orangs and the Gibbons constitute
the distinct genera, Simia and Hylobates; while the Chim-
panzees and Gorillas are by some regarded simply as distinct
species of one genus, Troglodytes ; by others as distinct

_ genera—Troglodytes being reserved for the Chimpanzees,
| and Gorilla for the Engé-ena or Pongo.

Sound knowledge respecting the habits and mode of life of
the man-like Apes has been even more difficult of attainment
than correct information regarding their structure.

Once in a generation, a Wallace may be found physically,
mentally, and morally qualified to wander unscathed through

25

the tropical wilds of America and of Asia; to form magnificent
collections as he wanders; and withal to think out sagaciously
the conclusions suggested by his collections: but, to the ordi-
~ nary explorer or collector, the dense forests of equatorial Asia
and Africa, which constitute the favourite habitation of the
Orang, the Chimpanzee, and the Gorilla, present difficulties
of no ordinary magnitude: and the man who risks his life
by even a short visit to the malarious shores of those regions
may well be excused if he shrinks from facing the dangers of
the interior; if he contents himself with stimulating the
industry of the better seasoned natives, and collecting and
collating the more or less mythical reports and traditions
with which they are too ready to supply him.

In such a manner most of the earlier accounts of the habits
of the man-like Apes originated; and even now a good deal
of what passes current must be admitted to have no very safe
foundation. The best information we possess is that, based
almost wholly on direct European testimony, respecting the
Gibbons ; the next best evidence relates to the Orangs; while
our knowledge of the habits of the Chimpanzee and the
Gorilla stands much in need of support and enlargement by
additional testimony from instructed European eye-witnesses.

Tt will therefore be convenient in endeavouring to form a
notion of what we are justified in believing about these ani-
mals, to commence with the best known man-like Apes, the
Gibbons and Orangs; and to make use of the perfectly reli-
able information respecting them as a sort of criterion of the

probable truth or falsehood of assertions respecting the others.

Of the Grssons, half a dozen species are found scattered
over the Asiatic islands, Java, Sumatra, Borneo, and through
Malacca, Siam, Arracan, and an uncertain extent of Hin-
dostan, on the main land of Asia. The largest attain a few
inches above three feet in height, from the crown to the heel,
so that they are shorter than the other man-like Apes; while
the slenderness of their bodies renders their mass far smaller
in proportion even to this diminished height.

a nla ——a

3

who lived for many years in the Eastern Archipelago, and to

3

shall frequently

HI. pileatus), after Wolf.

(

states that the Gibbons are true

mountaineers, loving the slopes and edges of the _ hills

Fie. 8.—A Gibbon
of whose personal experience I

a5
oa
"S
Foi
8
3
i=
i)
a
|
fon
ee}
Oo
ro
MR
hes |
i=
=
2)
oO
oO
iss]
g
fo]
Hy
o
SED
5
S|
fo}
=|
a
S
op
4
=

have occasion to refer,

the results

27

though they rarely ascend beyond the limit of the fig-trees.
All day long they haunt the tops of the tall trees; and
though, towards evening, they descend in small troops to
the open ground, no sooner do they spy a man than they
dart up the hill-sides, and disappear in the darker valleys.
All observers testify to the prodigious volume of voice pos-
sessed by these animals. According to the writer whom I
have just cited, in one of them, the Siamang, “the voice is
grave and penetrating, resembling the sounds gock, goek,
goek, goek, goek ha haha ha haaaaa, and may easily be heard
at a distance of half a league.” While the cry is being uttered,

the great membranous bag under the throat which commu- iB

nicates with the organ of voice, the so-called “laryngeal sac,”
becomes greatly distended, diminishing again when the crea-
ture relapses into silence. hed

~ M. Duvaucel, likewise, affirms that the cry of the Siamang
may be heard for miles—making the woods ring again. So
Mr. Martin* describes the cry of the agile Gibbon as “ over-
powering and deafening ” in a room, and “ from its strength,
well calculated for resounding through the vast forests.” Mr.
Waterhouse, an accomplished musician as well as zoologist,
says, “The Gibbon’s voice is certainly much more powerful
than that of any singer I ever heard.” And yet it is to be
recollected that this animal is not half the height of, and far
less bulky in proportion than, a man.

There is good testimony that various species of Gibbon
readily take to the erect posture. Mr. George Bennett,+ a
very excellent observer, in describing the habits of a male
Hylobates syndactylus which remained for some time in his
possession, says; “ He invariably walks in the erect posture
when on a level surface ; and then the arms either hang down,
enabling him to assist himself with his knuckles; or what is
more usual, he keeps his arms uplifted in nearly an erect
position, with the hands pendent ready to seize a rope, and.

* “ Man and Monkies,” p. 423.
+ Wanderings in New South Wales, Vol. I, chap. viii. 1834,

28

climb up on the approach of danger or on the obtrusion of
strangers. He walks rather quick in the erect posture, but
with a waddling gait, and is soon run down if, whilst pursued,
he has no opportunity of escaping by climbing. . . ., When -
he walks in the erect posture he turns the leg and foot out-
wards, which occasions him to have a waddling gait and to
seem bow-legged.”

Dr. Burrough states of another Gibbon, the Horlack or
Hooluk :

“They walk erect ; and when placed on the floor, or in an
open field, balance themselves very prettily, by raising their
hands over their head and slightly bending the arm at the
wrist and elbow, and then run tolerably fast, rocking from
side to side; and, if urged to greater speed, they let fall their
hands to the ground, and assist themselves forward, rather
jumping than running, still keeping the body, however,
nearly erect.”

Somewhat different evidence, however, is given by Dr.
Winslow Lewis: * ©

“Their only manner of walking was on their posterior or
inferior extremities, the others being raised upwards to
preserve their equilibrium, as rope-dancers are assisted by
long poles at fairs. Their progression was not by placing one
foot before the other, but by simultaneously using both, asin
jumping.” Dr. Salomon Miiller also states that the Gibbons
progress upon the ground by short series of tottering jumps,
effected only by the hind limbs, the body being held alto-
gether upright. —

But, Mr. Martin, (1. c. p. 418) who also speaks from direct
observation, says of the Gibbons generally :

“Pre-eminently qualified for arboreal habits, and display-
ing among the branches amazing activity, the Gibbons are
not so awkward or embarrassed on a level surface as might
be imagined. They walk erect, with a waddling or unsteady
gait, but at a quick pace; the equilibrium of the body

* Boston Journal of Natural History, Vol. I. 1834,

Sa

29

requiring to be kept up, either by touching the ground with —

the knuckles, first on one side then on the other, or by up-
lifting'the arms so as to poise it. As with the Chimpanzee,
the whole of the narrow, long sole of the foot is placed upon
the ground at once and raised at once, without any elasticity
of step.”

After this mass of concurrent and independent testimony,
it cannot reasonably be doubted that the Gibbons commonly
and habitually assume the erect attitude.

But level ground is not the place where these animals can
display their very remarkable and peculiar locomotive powers,
and that prodigious activity which almost tempts one to rank
them among flying, rather than among ordinary climbing
mammals.

My. Martin (1. c. p. 430) has given so excellent and graphic
an account of the movements of a Hylobates agilis, living in
the Zoological Gardens, in 1840, that I will quote it in full:

“Tt is almost impossible to convey in words an idea of the
quickness and graceful address of her movements: they may
indeed be termed aerial, as she seems merely to touch in her
progress the branches among which she exhibits her evolu-
tions. In these feats her hands and arms are the sole organs
of locomotion; her body hanging as if supended by a rope,
sustained by one hand (the right, for example), she launches
herself, by an energetic movement, to a distant branch,
which she catches with the left hand; but her hold is less
than momentary: the impulse for the next launch is ac-
quired: the branch then aimed at is attained by the right
hand again, and quitted instantaneously, and so on, in

alternate succession. In this manner spaces of twelve and
eighteen feet are cleared, with the greatest ease and un-
interruptedly, for hours together, without the slightest
appearance of fatigue being manifested; and it is evident
that, if more space could be allowed, distances very greatly
exceeding eighteen feet would be as easily cleared ; so that
Duvaucel’s assertion that he has seen these animals launch

30

themselves from one branch to another, forty feet asunder,
startling as it is, may be well credited. Sometimes, on
seizing a branch in her progress, she will throw herself,
by the power of one arm only, completely round it, making
a revolution with such rapidity as almost to deceive the eye,
and continue her progress with undiminished velocity. It is
singular to observe how suddenly this Gibbon can stop,
when the impetus given by the rapidity and distance of her
swinging leaps would seem to require a gradual abatement of
her movements. In the very midst of her flight a branch is
seized, the body raised, and she is seen, as if by magic,
quietly seated on it, grasping it with her feet. As suddenly
she again throws herself into action.

“The following facts will convey some notion of her
dexterity and quickness. A live bird was let loose in
her apartment ; she marked its flight, made a long swing to
a distant branch, caught the bird with one hand in her
passage, and attained the branch with her other hand; her
aim, both at the bird and at the branch, being as successful
as if one object only had engaged her attention. It may be
added that she instantly bit off the head of the bird, picked
its feathers, and then threw it down without attempting
to eat it.

“On another occasion this animal swung herself from
a perch, across a passage at least twelve feet wide, against a
window which it was thought would be immediately broken :
but not so; to the surprise of all, she caught the narrow
framework between the panes with her hand, in an ~instant

attained the proper impetus, and sprang back again to the
cage she had left—a feat requiring not only great strength,
but the nicest precision.”

The Gibbons appear to be naturally very gentle, but there
is very good evidence that they will bite severely when irri-
tated—a female Hylobates agilis having so severely lacerated
one man with her long canines, that he died; while she had

31

injured others so much that, by way of precaution, these
formidable teeth had been filed down; but, if threatened,
she would still turn on her keeper. The Gibbons eat insects,
but appear generally to avoid animal food. A Siamang,
however, was seen by Mr. Bennett to seize and devour
greedily a live lizard. They commonly drink by dipping

their fingers in the liquid and then licking them. It is

asserted that they sleep in a sitting posture.

- Duvaucel affirms that he has seen the females carry their
young to the waterside and there wash their faces, in spite of
resistance and cries. They are gentle and affectionate in cap-
tivity—full of tricks and pettishness, like spoiled children,
and yet not devoid of a certain conscience, as an anecdote,
told by Mr. Bennett (1. c. p. 156), will show. It would appear
that his Gibbon had a peculiar inclination for disarranging
things in the cabin. Among these articles, a piece of soap
would especially attract his notice, and for the removal of this
he had been once or twice scolded. “One morning,” says
Mr. Bennett, “I was writing, the ape being present in the
cabin, when casting my eyes towards him, I saw the little
fellow taking the soap. I watched him without his perceiving
that I did so: and he occasionally would cast a furtive glance
‘towards the place where I sat. I pretended to write; he,
seeing me busily occupied, took the soap, and moved away
with it in his paw. When he had walked half the length of
the cabin, I spoke quietly, without frightening him. The in-
stant he found I saw him, he walked back again, and deposited
the soap nearly in the same place from whence he had taken
it. There was certainly something more than instinct in that
action: he evidently betrayed a consciousness of having done
wrong both by his first and last actions—and what is reason
if that is not an exercise of it ?”

The most elaborate account of the natural history of the
Orane-Uran extant, is that given in the “ Verhandelingen

32

over de Natuurlijke Geschiedenis der Nederlandsche over-
zeesche Bezittingen (1839-45),” by Dr. Salomon Miller and
Dr. Schlegel, and I shall base what I have to say upon this

ue
Aah Ui
HH}

iy
art
URN)
i NY ‘

Fie. 9.—An adult male Orang-Utan, after Miiller and Schlegel.

subject almost entirely on their statements, adding, here and
there, particulars of interest from the writings of Brooke,
Wallace, and others.

33

The Orang-Utan would rarely seem to exceed four feet in
height, but the body is very bulky, ieaceneticty two-thirds of
the height in circumference.*

The Orang-Utan is found only in Sumatra and Borneo,
and is common in neither of these islands—in both of which
it occurs always in low, flat plains, never in the mountains. It
- loves the densest and most sombre of the forests, which ex-
tend from the sea-shore inland, and thus is found only in the
eastern half of Sumatra, where alone such forests occur,
though, occasionally, it strays over to the western side.

On the other hand, it is generally distributed through

Borneo, except in the mountains, or where the population is
dense. In favourable places, the hunter may, by good for-
tune, see three or four in a day.

Except in the pairing time, the old males usually live by
themselves. The old females, and the immature males, on the
other hand, are often met with in twos and threes; and the
former occasionally have young with them, though the
pregnant females usually separate themselves, and sometimes
remain apart after they have given birth to their offspring.
The young Orangs seem to remain unusually long under their
mother’s protection, probably in consequence of their slow
growth. While climbing, the mother always carries her young

* The largest Orang-Utan, cited by Temminck, measured, when standing
upright, four feet ; but he mentions having just received news of the capture of
an Orang five feet three inches high. Schlegel and Miller say that their largest
old male measured, upright, 1.25 Netherlands “el ;” and from the crown to the
end of the toes, 1.5 el; the circumference of the body being about lel. The
largest old female was 1.09 el high, when standing. The adult skeleton in the
College of Surgeons’ Museum, if set upright, would stand 3 ft. 6-8 in. from crown
to sole. Dr. Humphry gives 3 ft. 8in. as the mean height of two Orangs.
Of seventeen Orangs examined by Mr. Wallace, the largest was 4 ft. 2 in. high,
from the heel to the crown of the head. Mr. Spencer St. John, however, in his
“ Life in the Forests of the Far East,” tells us of an Orang of “5 ft. 2 in., measur-
ing fairly from the head to the heel,” 15 in. across the face, and 12 in. round
the wrist. It does not appear, however, that Mr. St. John measured this Orang
himself,

D

= si <li

|
H
i

ee

gh PE GRE

34.

| against. her. bosom, the young holding on by his mother’s
hair.* At what time of life the Orang-Utan becomes capable

of propagation, and how long the females go with young,

-, is unknown, but it is probable that they are not adult until

they arrive at ten or fifteen years of age. A female which

_ lived for five years at Batavia, had not attained one-third the

height of the wild females. It is probable that, after reaching
adult years, they go on growing, though slowly, and that they
live to forty or fifty years. The Dyaks tell of old Orangs,
which have not only lost all their teeth, but which find it
so troublesome to climb, that they maintain themselves on
windfalls and juicy herbage.

The Orang is sluggish, exhibiting none of that marvellous
activity characteristic of the Gibbons. Hunger alone seems
to stir him to exertion, and when it is stilled, he relapses into
repose. When the animal sits, it curves its back and bows its
head, so as to look straight down on the ground ; sometimes
it holds on with its hands by a higher branch, sometimes lets
them hang phlegmatically down by its side—and in these posi-
tions the Orang will remain, for hours together, in the same
spot, almost without stirring, and only now and then giving
utterance to its deep, growling voice. By day, he usually
climbs from one tree-top to another, and only at night
descends to the ground, and if then threatened with danger,
he seeks refuge among the underwood. When not hunted,
he remains a long time in the same locality, and sometimes
stops for many days on the same tree—a firm place among its
branches serving him for a bed. It is rare for the Orang to
pass the night in the summit of a large tree, probably because
it is too windy and cold there for him ; but, as soon as night

draws on, he descends from the height and seeks out a fit bed

* See Mr. Wallace’s account of an infant “ Orang-utan,” inthe “ Annals of |

Natural History” for 1856. Mr. Wallace provided his interesting charge with

an artificial mother of buffalo-skin, but the cheat.was too successful. The
infant’s entire experience led it to associate teats with hair, and feeling the
latter, it spent its existence in vain endeavours to discover the former,

35
in the lower and darker part, or in the leafy top of a small tree,
among which he prefers Nibong Palms, Pandani, or one of
those parasitic Orchids which give the primeeval forests of
Borneo so characteristic and striking an appearance. But
wherever he determines to sleep, there he prepares himself a
sort of nest: little boughs and leaves are drawn together
-round the selected spot, and bent crosswise over one another ;
while to make the bed soft, great leaves of Ferns, of Orchids,
of Pandanus fascicularis, Nipa fruticans, &c., are laid over
them. Those which Miller saw, many of them being very
fresh, were situated at a height of ten to twenty-five feet
above the ground, and had a circumference, on the average,
of two or three feet. Some were packed many inches thick
with Pandanus leaves; others were remarkable only for the
cracked twigs, which, united in a common centre, formed a
regular platform. ‘The rude hut,” says Sir James Brooke,
“which they are stated to build in the trees, would be more
properly called a seat or nest, for it has no roof or cover of
any sort. The facility with which they form this nest is
curious, and I had an opportunity of seeing a wounded
female weave the branches together and seat herself, within a

minute.”’ Bas

According to the Dyaks the Orang rarely leaves his bed
before the sun is well above the horizon and has dissipated
the mists. He gets up about nine, and goes to bed again

about five; but sometimes not till late in the twilight. He |
lies sometimes'on his back; or, by way of change, turns on |
one side or the other, drawing his limbs up to his body, and :

resting his head on his hand. When the night is cold, windy,
or rainy, he usually covers his body with a heap of Pandanus,

Nipa, or Fern leaves, like those of which his bed is made, and

he is especially careful to wrap up his head in them. It is
this habit of covering himself up which has probably led to
the fable that the Orang builds huts in the trees.

Although the Orang resides mostly amid the boughs of great
: D2

a: a ee

36

trees, during the daytime, he is very rarely seen squatting on
a thick branch, as other apes and particularly the Gibbons, do.
The Orang, on the contrary, confines himself to the slender
leafy branches, so that he is seen right at the top of the
trees, a mode of life which is closely related to the constitu-
tion of his hinder limbs, and especially to that of his seat.
For this is provided with no callosities, such as are possessed
by many of the lower apes, and even by the Gibbons; and
those bones of the pelvis, which are termed the ischia, and
which form the solid framework of the surface on which the
body rests in the sitting posture, are not expanded like those
of the apes which possess callosities, but are more like those
of man.

An Orang climbs so slowly and cautiously,* as, in this act,
to resemble a man more than an ape, taking great care of his
feet, so that injury of them seems to affect him far more
than it does other apes. Unlike the Gibbons, whose fore-
arms do the greater part of the work, as they swing from
branch to branch, the Orang never makes even the smallest
jump. In climbing, he moves alternately one hand and one
foot, or, after having laid fast hold with the hands, he draws
up both feet together. In passing from one tree to another,
he always seeks out a place where the twigs of both come
close together, or interlace. Even when closely pursued, his
circumspection is amazing: he shakes the branches to see if
they will bear him, and then bending an overhanging bough
down by throwing his weight gradually along it, he makes a
bridge from the tree he wishes to quit to the next.+

On the ground the Orang always goes laboriously and
shakily, on all fours. At starting he will run faster than a

* “They are the.slowest and least active of all the monkey tribe, and their
motions are surprisingly awkward and uncouth.”—Sir James Brooke, in the
“Proceedings of the Zoological Society,” 1841,

t Mr. Wallace’s account of the progression of the Orang almost exactly cor-
responds with this,

man, though he may soon be overtaken. The very long arms
which, when he runs, are but little bent, raise the body of the
Orang remarkably, so that he assumes much the posture of a
“very old man bent down by age, and making his way along
by the help of a stick. In walking, the body is usually
directed straight forward, unlike the other apes, which run
more or less obliquely ; except the Gibbons, who in these, as
in so many other respects, depart remarkably from their
fellows. :

The Orang cannot put its feet flat on the ground, but is
supported upon their outer edges, the heel resting more
on the ground, while the curved toes partly rest upon the
ground by the upper side of their first jot, the two outer-
most toes of each foot completely resting on this surface.
The hands are held in the opposite manner, their inner edges
serving as the chief support. The fingers are then bent out
in such a manner that their foremost joints, especially those
of the two innermost fingers, rest upon the ground by their
upper sides, while the point of the free and straight thumb
serves as an additional fulcrum.

The Orang never stands on its’ hind legs, and all the
pictures, representing it as so doing, are as false as the
assertion that it defends itself with sticks, and the like.

The long arms are of especial use, not only in climbing,
but in the gathering of food from boughs to which the
animal could not trust his weight. Figs, blossoms, and
young leaves of various kinds, constitute the chief nutriment
of the Orang; but strips of bamboo two or three feet long
were found in the stomach of a male. They are not known
to eat living animals.

Although, when taken young, the Orang-Utan soon becomes
domesticated, and indeed seems to court human society, it is
naturally avery wild and shy animal, though apparently slug-
gish and melancholy. The Dyaks affirm, that when the old
males are wounded with arrows only, they will occasionally

38

leave the trees and rush raging upon their enemies, whose
sole safety lies in instant flight, as they are sure to be killed
if caught.*

But, though .possessed of immense strength, it is rare
for the Orang to attempt to defend itself, especially when
attacked with fire-arms. On such occasions he endeavours

to hide himself, or to escape along the topmost branches
of the'trees, breaking off and throwing down the boughs as
he goes. When wounded he betakes himself to the highest
attainable point of the tree, and emits a singular cry, con-
sisting at first of high notes, which at length deepen into a
|) low roar, not unlike that of a panther. While giving out the
|| high notes the Orang thrusts out his lips into a funnel shape ;

* Sir James Brooke, in a letter to Mr. Waterhouse, published in the pro-
ceedings of the Zoological Society for 1841, says:—“On the habits of the
Orangs, as far as I have been able to observe them, I may remark that they are
as dull and slothful as can well be conceived, and on no occasion, when pur-
suing them, did they move so fast as to preclude my keeping pace with them
easily through a moderately clear forest ; and even when obstructions below
(such as wading up to the neck) allowed them to get away some distance, they
were sure to stop and allow me to come up. I never observed the slightest

attempt at defence, and the wood which sometimes rattled about our ears was
broken by their weight, and not thrown, as some persons represent. If pushed
to extremity, however, the Pappan could not be otherwise than formidable,
and one unfortunate man, who, with a party, was trying to catch a large one
alive, lost two of his fingers, besides being severely bitten on the face, whilst
the animal finally beat off his pursuers and escaped.”

Mr. Wallace, on the other hand, affirms that he has several times observed
them throwing down branches when pursued. “Tt is true he does not throw
them az a person, but casts them down vertically ; for it is evident that a bough
cannot be thrown to any distance from the top of a lofty tree. In one case a

_ female Mias, on a durian tree, kept up for at least ten minutes a continuous
shower of branches and of the heavy, spined fruits, as large as 32-pounders,
which most effectually kept us clear of the tree she was on. She could be seen
breaking them off and throwing them down with every appearance of rage,
uttering at intervals a loud pumping grunt, and evidently meaning mischief.”
“On the Habits of the Orang-Utan,” Annals of Nat. History. 1856. This
statement, it will be observed, is quite in accordance with that contained in the
letter of the Resident Palm quoted above (p. 16).

39

but in uttering the low notes he holds his mouth wide open,
and at the same time the great throat bag, or laryngeal sac,
becomes distended.

According to the Dyaks, the only animal the Orang mea-
sures his strength with is the crocodile, who occasionally
seizes him on his visits to the water side. But they say that
the Orang is more than a match for his enemy, and beats him
to death, or rips up his throat by pulling the jaws asunder !

Much of what has been here stated was probably derived
by Dr. Miiller from the reports of his Dyak hunters; but
a large male, four feet high, lived in captivity, under his obser-
vation, for a month, and receives a very bad character.

“He was’a very wild beast,’? says Miiller, “of prodigious
strength, and false and wicked to the last degree. If any one

approached he rose up slowly with a low growl, fixed his eyes”

in the direction in which he meant to make his attack, slowly
passed his hand between the bars of his cage, and then extend-
ing his long arm, gave a sudden grip—usually at the face.”

He never tried to bite (though Orangs will bite one another), .

his great weapons of offence and defence being his hands.

His intelligence was very great ; and Miller remarks, that
though the faculties of the Orang have been estimated too
highly, yet Cuvier, had he seen this specimen, would not have
considered its intelligence to be only a little higher than that
of the dog.

—

His hearing was very acute, but the sense of vision seemed |

to be less perfect. The under lip was the great organ of touch, +
and played avery important part in drinking, being thrust

out like a trough, so as either to catch the falling rain, or to
receive the contents of the half cocoa-nut shell full of water
with which the Orang was supplied, and which, in drinking, he
poured into the trough thus formed.

Tn Borneo the Orang-Utan of the Malays goes by the name
of “Mias” among the Dyaks, who distinguish several kinds

as Mias Pappan, or Zimo, Mias Kassu, and Mias Rambi.

40

Whether these are distinct species, however, or whether they
are mere races, and how far any of them are identical with
the Sumatran Orang, as Mr. Wallace thinks the Mias
Pappan to be, are problems which are at present undecided ;
and the variability of these great apes is so extensive, that
the settlement of the question is a matter of great diffi-
culty. Of the form called “Mias Pappan,” Mr. Wallace*
observes, “It is known by its large size, and by the lateral
expansion of the face into fatty protuberances, or ridges,
over the temporal muscles, which have been mis-termed cal-
losities, as they are perfectly soft, smooth, and flexible. Five
of this form, measured by me, varied only from 4 feet 1 inch
to 4 feet 2 inches in height, from the heel to the crown of
the head, the girth of the body from 3 feet to 3 feet 74 inches,
and the extent of the outstretched arms from 7 feet 2 inches
to 7 feet 6 inches; the width of the face from 10 to 132
inches. The colour and length of the hair varied in dif-
ferent individuals, and in different parts of the same indi-
vidual; some possessed a rudimentary nail on the great toe,
others none at all; but they otherwise present no external
differences on which to establish even varieties of a species.
Yet, when we examine the crania of these individuals, we
| find remarkable differences of form, proportion, and dimen-
| sion, no two being exactly alike. The slope of the profile,
"and the projection of the muzzle, together with the size of
the cranium, offer differences as decided as those existing
between the most strongly marked forms of the Caucasian
and African crania in the human species. The orbits vary
in width and height, the cranial ridge is either single or
double, either much or little developed, and the zygomatic
aperture varies considerably in size. This variation in the
proportions of the crania enables us satisfactorily to explain
the marked difference presented by the single-crested and

* On the Orang-Utan, or Mias of Borneo, Annals of Natural History,
1856.

41

double-crested skulls, which have been thought to prove the
existence of two large species of Orang. The external sur-
face of the skull varies considerably in size, as do also the
zygomatic aperture and the temporal muscle; but they
bear no necessary relation to each other, a small muscle often
existing with a large cranial surface, ‘and vice versd. Now,

those skulls which have the largest and strongest jaws and_

the widest zygomatic aperture, have the muscles so large
that they meet on the crown of the skull, and deposit the
bony ridge which separates them, and which is the highest
in that which has the smallest cranial surface. In those
which combine a large surface with comparatively weak jaws,
and small zygomatic aperture, the muscles, on each side, do
not extend to the crown, a space of from 1 to 2 inches re-
maining between them, and along their margins small ridges
are formed. Intermediate forms are found, in which the
ridges meet only in the hinder part of the skull. The form
and size of the ridges are therefore independent of age, being
sometimes more strongly developed in the less aged animal.
Professor Temminck states that the series of skulls in the
Leyden Museum shows the same result.”

Mr. Wallace observed two male adult Orangs (Mias Kassu
of the Dyaks), however, so very different from any of these
that he concludes them to be specifically distinct ; they were
respectively 3 feet 84 in. and 3 feet 95 inches high, and pos-
sessed no sign of the cheek excrescences, but otherwise re-
sembled the larger kinds. The skull has no crest, but two
bony ridges, 13 inches to 2 inches apart, as in the Simia
morio of Professor Owen. The teeth, however, are im-

mense, equalling or surpassing those of the other species.
The females of both these kinds, according to Mr. Wallace,
are devoid of excrescences, and resemble the smaller males,
but are shorter by 14 to 3 inches, and their canine teeth are
comparatively small, subtruncated and dilated at the base, as
in the so-called Simia morio, which is, in all probability, the
skull of a female of the same species as the smaller males,

42

Both males and females of this smaller species are distin-
guishable, according to Mr. Wallace, by the comparatively
large size of the middle incisors of the upper jaw.

So far as I am aware, no one has attempted to dispute the
accuracy of the statements which I have just quoted regarding
the habits of the two Asiatic man-like Apes; and if true,
they must be admitted as evidence, that such an Ape—

Istly, May readily move along the ground in the erect, or
semi-erect, position, and without direct support from its arms.

2ndly, That it may possess an extremely loud voice, so loud
as to be readily heard one or two miles.

3rdly, That it may be capable of great viciousness and
violence when irritated: and this is especially true of adult
males.

A4thly, That it may build a nest to sleep in.

Such being well-established facts respecting the Asiatic
Anthropoids, analogy alone might justify us in expecting the
African species to offer similar peculiarities, separately or

combined ; or, at any rate, would destroy the force of any
attempted @ priori argument against such direct testimony as
might be adduced in favour of their existence. And, if the or-
- ganization of any of the African Apes could be demonstrated
to fit it better than either of its Asiatic allies for the erect
position and for efficient attack, there would be still less

reason for doubting its occasional adoption of the upright atti-
tude or of aggressive proceedings.

From the time of Tyson and Tulpius downwards, the
habits of the young Carmpanzrz in a state of captivity
have been abundantly reported and commented upon. But
trustworthy evidence as to the manners and customs of
adult anthropoids of this species, in their native woods, was
almost wanting up to the time of the publication of the
paper by Dr. Savage, to which I have already referred ;
containing notes of the observations which he made, and of ,
the information which he collected from sources which he

43

considered trustworthy, while resident at Cape Palmas, at
the north-western limit of the Bight of Benin.

The adult Chimpanzees, measured by Dr. Savage, never
exceeded, though the males may almost attain, five feet in
height.

“When at rest, the sitting posture is that generally
assumed. They are sometimes seen standing and walking,
but when thus detected, they immediately take to all fours,
and flee from the presence of the observer. Such is their
organization that they cannot ‘stand erect, but lean forward.
Hence they are seen, when standing, with the hands clasped
over the occiput, or the lumbar region, which would seem
necessary to balance or ease of posture.

“The toes of the adult are strongly flexed and turned
inwards, and cannot be perfectly straightened. In the
attempt the skin gathers into thick folds on the back, shew-
ing that the full expansion of the foot, as is necessary in
walking, is unnatural. The natural position is on all fours,
the body anteriorly resting upon the knuckles, These are
greatly enlarged, with the skin protuberant and thickened
like the sole of the foot.

“They are expert climbers, as one would suppose from their
organization. In their gambols they swing from limb to
limb to a great distance, and leap with astonishing agility.
It is not unusual to see the ‘old folks’ (Gn the language of
an observer) sitting under a tree regaling themselves with
fruit and friendly chat, while their ‘children’ are leaping
around them, and swinging from tree to tree with boisterous
merriment.

“ As seen here, they cannot be called gregarious, seldom
more than five, or ten at most, being found together. It
has been said, on good authority, that they occasionally
assemble in large numberg, in gambols. My informant ;—
asserts that he saw once not less than fifty so engaged ; |
hooting, screaming, and drumming. with sticks upon old |
logs, which is done in the latter case with equal facility

44.

by the four extremities. They do not appear ever to act on
the offensive, and seldom, if ever really, on the defensive.
When about to be captured, they resist by throwing their
arms about their opponent, and attempting to draw him into
contact with their teeth.” (Savage, 1. c. p. 384.)

With respect to this last point Dr. Savage is very explicit
in another place ;

“‘ Biting is their principal art of defence. I have seen one
man who had been thus severely wounded in the feet.

“The strong development of the canine teeth in the
adult would seem to indicate a carnivorous propensity ;
but in no state save that of domestication do they manifest
it. At first they reject flesh, but easily acquire a fondness
for it. The canines are early developed, and evidently
designed to act the important part of weapons of defence.
| When in contact with man almost the first effort of the
animal is—to bite.

“They avoid the abodes of men, and build their habita-
tions in trees. Their construction is more that of. nests
than /uts, as they have been erroneously termed by some
naturalists. They generally build not far above the ground.
Branches or twigs are bent, or partly broken, and crossed,
and the whole supported by the body of a limb or a crotch.
Sometimes a nest will be found near the end of a strong
leafy branch twenty or thirty feet from the ground. One I
have lately seen that could not be less than forty feet,
and more probably it was fifty. But this is an unusual
height. .

“Their dwelling-place is not permanent, but changed in
pursuit of food and solitude, according to the force of
circumstances. We more often see them in elevated places ;:
but this arises from the fact that the low grounds, being
more favourable for the nativeg? rice-farms, are the oftener
cleared, and hence are almost always wanting in suitable
trees for their nests. . .. . It is seldom that more than
one or two nests are seen upon the same tree, or in the

45

same ‘neighbourhood: five have been found, but it was
an unusual circumstance.” . 2... . «%

«They are very filthy in their habits. .... It is a
tradition with: the natives generally here, that they were
once members of their own tribe: that for their depraved
habits they were expelled from all human society, and,

that through an obstinate indulgence of their vile pro-—

pensities, they have degenerated into their present state
and organization. They are, however, eaten by them,
and when cooked with the oil and pulp of the palm-nut
considered a highly palatable morsel. |
“They exhibit a remarkable degree of intelligence in their
habits, and, on the part of the mother, much affection for
their young. The second female described was upon a tree
when first discovered, with her mate and two young ones (a
male and a female). Her first impulse was to descend with

great rapidity, and make off into the thicket, with her mate |

and female offspring. The young male remaining behind, she
soon returned to the rescue. She ascended and took him in
her arms, at which moment she was shot, the ball passing
through the fore-arm of the young one, on its way to the
heart of the mother .....

“ In a recent case, the mother, when discovered, remained
upon the tree with her offspring, watching intently the move-
ments of the hunter. As he took aim, she motioned with
her hand, precisely in the manner of a human being, to have
him desist and go away. When the wound has not proved
instantly fatal, they have been known to stop the flow of
blood by pressing with the hand upon the part, and when

this did not succeed, to apply leaves and grass . . . . When |
shot, they give a sudden screech, not unlike that of a human 1)

being in sudden and acute distress.”

The ordinary voice of the Chimpanzee, however, is affirmed
to be hoarse, guttural, and not very loud, somewhat like
“whoo-whoo.” (1. c. p. 365.)

The analogy of the Chimpanzee to the Orang, in its nest-

sot Neamt. nenccrennc ene te

46

building habit and in the mode of forming its nest, is exceed-
ingly interesting; while, on the other hand, the activity of
this ape, and its tendency to bite, are particulars in which it
rather resembles the Gibbons. In extent of geographical
range, again, the Chimpanzees—which are found from Sierra
Leone to Congo—remind one of the Gibbons, rather than
of either of the other man-like apes; and it seems not
unlikely that, as is the case with the Gibbons, there may be
several species spread over the geographical area of the
genus.

The same excellent observer, from whom I have borrowed
the preceding account of the habits of the adult Chimpanzee,
published, fifteen years ago,* an account of the GoRILLA,
which has, in its most essential points, been confirmed by
subsequent observers, and to which so very little has really
been added, that in justice to Dr. Savage I give it almost
in full.

“Tt should be borne in mind that my account is based
upon the statements of the aborigines of that region (the
Gaboon). In this connection, it may also be proper for me
to remark, that having been a missionary resident for several
years, studying, from habitual intercourse, the African mind
and character, I felt myself prepared to discriminate and
decide upon the probability of their statements. Besides,
being familiar with the history and habits of its interest-
ing congener (Trog. niger, Geoff.), I was able to separate their
accounts of the two animals, which, having the same locality
and a similarity of habit, are confounded in the minds of the
mass, especially as but few—such as traders to the interior
and huntsmen—have ever seen the animal in question,

The tribe from which our knowledge of the animal is
derived, and whose territory forms its habitat, is the Mpongwe,
occupying both banks of the River Gaboon, from its mouth
to some fifty or sixty miles upward

* Notice of the external characters and habits of Troglodytes Gorilla,
Boston Journal of Natural we 1847.

lan

If the word “ Pongo” be of African origin, it is probably a
corruption of the word Mpongwe, the name of the tribe on
the banks of the Gaboon, and hence applied to the region

SSSERSSARE

Wo
TAN
Hi

Fic. 10.—The Gorilla, after Wolf.

they inhabit. Their local name for the Chimpanzee is
Enché-eko, as near as it can be. Anglicized, from which the

common term “Jocko” probably comes. The. Mpongwe

appellation for its new congener is Engé-ena, prolonging

‘er

48

the sound of the first vowel, and slightly sounding the
second.

The habitat of the Engé-ena is the interior of lower Guinea,
whilst that of the Hnché-eko is nearer the sea-board.

Its height is about five feet ; it is disproportionately broad
across the shoulders, thickly covered with coarse black hair,
which is said to be similar in its arrangement to that of the
Linché-eko ; with age it becomes gray, which fact has given
rise to the report that both animals are seen of different
colours.

Head.—The prominent features of the head are, the great
width and elongation of the face,the depth of the molar region,
the branches of the lower jaw being very deep and extending
far backward, and the comparative smallness of the cranial
portion; the eyes are very large, and said to be like those
of the Enché-eko, a bright hazel ; nose broad and flat, slightly
elevated towards the root; the muzzle broad, and prominent
lips and chin, with scattered gray hairs; the under lip highly
mobile, and eapable of great elongation when the animal is

ears eked, and of a dark brown, approaching to black.

The most remarkable feature of the head is a high ridge,
or crest of hair, in the course of the sagittal suture, which
meets posteriorly with a transverse ridge of the same, but less
prominent, running round from the back of one ear to the
other. The animal has the power of moving the scalp freely
forward and back, and when enraged is said to contract it
strongly over the brow, thus bringing down the hairy ridge
, and pointing the hair forward, so as to present an indescri-
\ bably ferocious aspect.

Neck short, thick, and hairy; chest and shoulders very
broad, said to be fully double the size of the Enché-ekos;
arms very long, reaching some way below the knee—the
fore-arm much the shortest; hands very large, the thumbs
much larger than the fingers
The gait is shuffling; the motion of the body, which is

49

never upright as in man, but bent forward, is somewhat
rolling, or from side to side. The arms being longer than
the Chimpanzee, it does
not stoop as much in
walking ; like that ani-
mal, it makes progres-
sion by thrusting its
arms forward, resting
the hands on_ the
ground, and then giving
the body a half jumping
half swinging motion
between them. In
this act it is said not to flex the fingers, as does the Chim-
panzee, resting on its knuckles, but to extend them, making
| . a fulcrum of the hand. When it assumes the walking pos-
/ ture, to which it is said to be much inclined, it balances its
| huge body by flexing its arms upward. ;
They live in bands, but are not so numerous as the Chim- i
| panzees: the females generally exceed the other sex in

.
: Fig. 11.—Gorilla walking (after Wolff.)

number. My informants all ‘agree in the assertion that but+

|
| one adult male is seen in a band; that when the young males
| grow up, a contest takes place for mastery, and the strongest,
by killing and driving out the others, establishes himself as
the head of the community.”
Dr. Savage repudiates the stories about the Gorillas
carrying off women and vanquishing elephants, and then
adds—
. “Their dwellings, if they may be so called, are similar to
\ those of the Chimpanzee, consisting simply of a few sticks
| and leafy branches, supported by the crotches and limbs of
trees: they afford no shelter, and are occupied only at night.
«They are exceedingly ferocious, and always offensive in
their habits, never running from man, as does the Chim-
panzee. They are objects of terror to the natives, and are

never encountered by them except on the defensive. The few
E

50

that have been captured were killed by elephant-hunters and
native traders, as they came suddenly upon them while
passing through the forests.

“Jt is said that when the male is first seen he gives
a terrific yell, that resounds far and wide through the forest,

oneness

gomething like kh—ah! kh—ah! prolonged and shrill. His
enormous jaws are widely opened at each expiration, his
under lip hangs over the chin, and the hairy ridge and scalp
are contracted upon the brow, presenting an aspect of
indescribable ferocity.

“The females and young, at the first cry, quickly dis-
appear. He then approaches the enemy in great fury,
pouring out his horrid cries in quick succession. The hunter
awaits his approach with his gun extended: if his aim is not
sure, he permits the animal to grasp the barrel, and as he
carries it to his mouth (which is his habit) he fires. Should
the gun fail to go off, the barrel (that of the ordinary
musket, which is thin) is crushed between his teeth, and the
encounter soon proves fatal to the hunter.

“In the wild state, their habits are in general like those of
the Troglodytes niger, building their nests loosely in trees,
living on similar fruits, and changing their place of resort
from force of circumstances.”

Dr. Savage’s observations were confirmed and supple-
mented by those of Mr. Ford, who communicated an inter-
esting paper on the Gorilla to the Philadelphian Academy of
Sciences, in 1852. With respect to the geographical distri-
bution of this greatest of all the man-like Apes, Mr. Ford
remarks :

“This animal inhabits the range of mountains that traverse
the interior of Guinea, from the Cameroon in the north,
to Angola in the south, and about 100 miles inland,
and called by the geographers Crystal Mountains. The
limit to which this animal extends, either north or south, I
am unable to define. But that limit is doubtless some
distance north of this river [Gaboon]. I was able to certify

51

myself of this fact ima late excursion to the head-waters of
the Mooney (Danger) River, which comes into the sea some
sixty miles from this place. I was informed (credibly, I
think,) that they were numerous among the mountains
in which that river rises, and far north of that.

“Tn the south, this species extends to the Congo River,
as I am told by native traders who have visited the
coast between the Gaboon and that river. Beyond that,
I am not informed. This animal is only found at a distance
from the coast in most cases, and, according to my best
information, approaches it nowhere so nearly as on the south
side of this river, where they have been found within
ten miles of the sea. This, however, is only of late occur-
rence. I am informed by some of the oldest Mpongwe men
that formerly he was only found on the sources of the river,
but that at present he may be found within half-a-day’s walk
of its mouth. Formerly he inhabited the mountainous
ridge where Bushmen alone inhabited, but now he boldly

_approaches the Mpongwe plantations. This is doubtiess the

reason of the scarcity of information in years past, as the
opportunities for receiving a knowledge of the animal have ;
not been wanting ; traders having for one hundred years fre-
quented this river, and specimens, such as have been brought
here within a year, could not have been exhibited without
having attracted the attention of the most stupid.”

One specimen Mr. Ford examined weighed 170lbs.,
without the thoracic, or pelvic, viscera, and measured
four feet four inches round the chest. This writer describes
so minutely and graphically the onslaught of the Gorilla—
though he does not for a moment pretend to have witnessed.
the scene—that Iam tempted to give this part of his paper
in full, for comparison with other narratives :

“He always rises to his fect when making an attack,
though he approaches his antagonist in a stooping posture.

“Though he never lies in wait, yet, when he hears, sees,

or scents a man, he immediately utters his characteristic cry,
E 2

52

prepares for an attack, and always acts on the offensive.
The cry he utters resembles a grunt more than a growl, and
is similar to the cry of the Chimpanzee, when irritated, but
vastly louder. It is said to be audible at a great distance.
His preparation consists in attending the females and young
ones, by whom he is usually accompanied, to a little distance.

| He, however, soon returns, with his crest erect and projecting
| forward, his nostrils dilated, and his under-lip thrown down;

| at the same time uttering his characteristic yell, designed, it
would seem, to terrify his antagonist. Instantly, unless he is
disabled by a well-directed shot, he makes an onset, and,
striking his antagonist with the palm of his hands, or seizing
him with a grasp from which there is no escape, he dashes
him upon the ground, and lacerates him with his tusks.

“He is said to seize a musket, and instantly crush
the barrel between his teeth, . . . . . This animal’s
savage nature is very well shewn by the implacable despera-
tion of a young one that was brought here. It was taken
very young, and kept four months, and many means were
used to tame it; but it was incorrigible, so that it bit me an
~ hour before it died.”

Mr. Ford discredits the house-building and elephant-
driving stories, and says that no well-informed natives
believe them. They are tales told to children.

I might quote other testimony to a similar effect, but, as
it appears to me, less carefully weighed and sifted, from the
letters of MM. Franquet and Gautier Laboullay, appended to
the memoir of M. 1. G. St. Hilaire, which I have already
cited.

Bearing in mind what is known regarding the Orang
and the Gibbon, the statements of Dr. Savage and Mr. Ford
do not appear to me to be justly open to criticism on @ priori
grounds. The Gibbons, as we have seen, readily assume
the erect posture, but the Gorilla is far better fitted by its
organization for that attitude than are the Gibbons: if the
aryngeal pouches of the Gibbons, as is very likely, are

53

important in giving volume to a voice which can be heard for
half a league, the Gorilla, which has similar sacs, more
largely developed, and whose bulk is fivefold that of a
Gibbon, may well be audible for twice that distance. If
the Orang fights with its hands, the Gibbons and Chim-
panzees with their teeth, the Gorilla may, probably enough,
do either or both; nor is there anything to be said against
either Chimpanzee or Gorilla building a nest, when it is
proved that the Orang-Utan habitually performs that feat.

‘With all this evidence, now ten to fifteen years old, before
the world, it is not a little surprising that the assertions of a
recent traveller, who, so far as the Gorilla is concerned,
really does very little more than repeat, on his own authority,
the statements of Savage and of Ford, should have met with
so much and such bitter opposition. If subtraction be made
of what was known before, the sum and substance of what
M. Du Chaillu has affirmed as a matter of his own observation
respecting the Gorilla, is, that, in advancing to the attack, the
great brute beats his chest with his fists. I confess I see
nothing very improbable, or very much worth disputing
about, in this statement.

With respect to the other man-like Apes of Africa, M. Du
Chaillu tells us absolutely nothing, of his own knowledge,
regarding the common Chimpanzee ; but he informs us of a
bald-headed species or variety, the nschiego mbouve, which
builds itself a shelter, and of another rare kind with a
comparatively small face, large facial angle, and peculiar
note, resembling “ Kooloo.”

As the Orang shelters itself with a rough coverlet of
leaves, and the common Chimpanzee, according to that
eminently trustworthy observer Dr. Savage, makes a sound

like “Whoo-whoo,”—the grounds of the summary repudiation

with which M. Du Chaillu’s statements on these matters
have been met is not obvious.

If I have abstained from quoting M. Du Chaillu’s work,
then, it is not because I discern any inherent improbability

|
‘
9

gms AA peer .

54

in his assertions respecting the man-like Apes; nor from
any wish to throw suspicion on his veracity ; but because,
in my opinion, so long as his narrative remains in its
present state of unexplained and apparently inexplicable
confusion, it has no claim to original authority respecting
any subject whatsoever.

It may be truth, but it is not evidence.

3 " ar

Or
or

African Cannibalism in the Sixteenth Century.

In turning over Pigafetta’s
version of the narrative of
Lopez, which I have quoted
_ above, I came upon so cu-
rious and unexpected an an-
ticipation, by some two cen-
turies and a half, of one of
the most startling parts of M.
Du Chaillu’s narrative, that I
cannot refrain from drawing
attention to it in a note, al-
though I must confess that
the subject is not strictly re-
levant to the matter in hand.

Tn the fifth chapter of the
first book of the “Descriptio,”
“Concerning the northern.
part of the Kingdom of Congo
and its boundaries,” is men-
tioned a people whose king is
called ‘Maniloango,’ and who.
live under the equator, and as
far westward as Cape Lopez.
This appears. to: be the coun-
try now inhabited by the
Ogobai and Bakalai accord-
ing to M. Du Chaillu.—“Be-
yond these dwell another

Pos S : os WAZ Se people called ‘ Anziques, of
a = incredible ferocity, for they
eat one another, sparing nei-~
ther friends nor relations.”
These people are armed with small bows bound tightly round with snake skins,
and strung with a reed or rush. ‘Their arrows, short and slender, but made of
hard wood, are shot with great rapidity. They have iron axes, the handles of
which are bound round with snake skins, and swords with scabbards of the same
material ; for defensive armour they employ elephant hides. They cut their
skins when young, so as to produce scars. “ Their butchers’ shops are filled with

Fig. 12,—Butcher’s Shop of the Anziques, Anno 1598.

?

seiuniaiennaeistsisasnbitiahauintnanniaate

56

human flesh instead of that of oxen or sheep. For they eat the enemies whom they
take in battle. They fatten, slay and devour their slaves also, unless they think
they shall get a good price for them ; and, moreover, sometimes for weariness
of life or desire of glory (for they think it a great thing and the sign of a gener-
ous soul to despise life), or for love of their rulers, offer themselves up for food.”

“ There areindeed many cannibals, asin the Eastern Indies and in Brazil and
elsewhere, but none such as these, since the others only eat their enemies, but

these their own blood relations.”

The careful illustrators of Pigafetta have done their best to enable the reader
to realize this account of the ‘ Anziques,’ and the unexampled butcher’s shop
represented in fig. 12, is a facsimile of part of their Plate XII.

M. Du Chaillu’s account of the Fans accords most singularly with what Lopez
here narrates of the Anziques. He speaks of their small crossbows and little
arrows, of their axes and knives, “ingeniously sheathed in snake skins.” “They

tattoo themselves more than any other tribes I have met north of the equator.”
And all the world knows what M. Du Chaillu says of their cannibalism—*“ Pre-
sently we passed a woman who solved all doubt. She bore with her a piece of
the thigh of a human body, just as we should go to market and carry thence a
roast or steak.” M. Du Chaillu’s artist cannot generally be accused of any want
of courage in embodying the statements of his author, and it is to be regretted
that, with so good an excuse, he has not furnished us with a fitting companion
to the sketch of the brothers De Bry.

PRES ame igh

Il.—ON THE RELATIONS OF MAN TO
THE LOWER ANIMALS.

Multis videri poterit, majorem esse differentiam Simix et Hominis, quam diei
et noctis; verum tamen hi, comparatione instituta inter summos Huropse
Heroés et Hottentottos ad Caput bone spei degentes, difficillime sibi per-
suadebunt, has eosdem habere natales; vel si virginem nobilem aulicam,
maxime comtam et humanissimam, conferre vellent cum homine sylvestri et
sibi relicto, vix augurari possent, hunc et illam ejusdem esse speciei.— Linnei
Amenitates Acad. “ Anthropomorpha.”

THe question of questions for mankind—the problem which
underlies all others, and is more deeply interesting than any
other—is the ascertainment of the place which Man occupies

in nature and of his relations to the universe of things.

Whence our race has come; what are the limits of our power
over nature, and of nature’s power over us; to what goal
we are tending; are the problems which present themselves
anew and with undiminished interest to every man born into
the world. Most of us, shrinking from the difficulties and
dangers which beset the seeker after original answers to
these riddles, are contented to ignore them altogether, or to
smother the investigating spirit under the featherbed of re-
spected and respectable tradition. But, in every age, one or
two restless spirits, blessed with that constructive genius,
which can only build on a secure foundation, or cursed with
the mere spirit of scepticism, are unable to follow in the
well-worn and comfortable track of their forefathers and con-
temporaries, and unmindful of thorns and stumbling-blocks,
strike out into paths of their own. The sceptics end in the
infidelity which asserts the problem to be insoluble, or in the

~ atheism which denies the existence of any orderly progress

a ata a

nN tt AE RC

i nsartpeihanaicialistiaa tase

98

and governance of things: the men of genius propound solu-
tions which grow into systems of Theology or of Philosophy,
or veiled in musical language which suggests more than it
asserts, take the shape of the Poetry of an epoch.

Hach such answer to the great question, invariably as-
serted by the followers of its propounder, if not by himself,
to be complete and final, remains in high authority and
esteem, it may be for one century, or it may be for twenty :
but, as invariably, Time proves each reply to have been a
mere approximation to the truth—tolerable chiefly on ac-
count of the ignorance of those by whom it was accepted,
and wholly intolerable when tested by the larger knowledge
of their successors.

In a well-worn metaphor, a parallel is drawn between the
life of man and the metamorphosis of the caterpillar into the
butterfly ; but the comparison may be more just as well as
more novel, if for its former term we take the mental progress
of the race. History shows that the human mind, fed by con-
stant accessions of knowledge, periodically grows too large for
its theoretical coverings, and bursts them asunder to appear in
new habiliments, as the feeding and growing grub, at in-
tervals, casts its too narrow skin and assumes another, itself
but temporary. Truly the imago state of Man seems to be
terribly distant, but every moult is astep gained, and of such
there have been many.

Since the revival of learning, whereby the Western races
of Europe were enabled to enter upon that progress towards
true knowledge, which was commenced by the philosophers of
Greece, but was almost arrested in subsequent long ages of in-
tellectual stagnation, or, at most, gyration, the human larva has

been feeding vigorously, and moulting in proportion. A skin
of some dimension was cast in the 16th century, and another
towards the end of the 18th, while, within the last fifty years,
the extraordinary growth of every department of physical
science has spread among us mental food of so nutritious and
stimulating a character that a new ecdysis seems imminent.

59

But this is a process not unusually accompanied by many
throes and some sickness and debility, or, it may be, by graver
disturbances; so that every good citizen must feel bound
to facilitate the process, and even if he have nothing but a
scalpel to work withal, to ease the cracking integument to
the best of his ability.

In this duty lies my excuse for the publication of these
essays. For it will be admitted that some knowledge of
man’s position in the animate world is an indispensable pre-
liminary to the proper understanding of his relations to the
universe—and this again resolves itself, in the long run, into
an inquiry into the nature and the closeness of the ties which
connect him with those singular creatures whose history*
has been sketched in the preceding pages.

The importance of such an inquiry is indeed intuitively

manifest. Brought face to face with these blurred copies of \

himself, the least thoughtful of men is conscious of a certain
shock, due perhaps, not so much to disgust at the aspect of

what looks like an insulting caricature, as to the awakening

of a sudden and profound mistrust of time-honoured theories
and strongly-rooted prejudices regarding his own position in
nature, and his relations to the under-world of life ; while that
which remains a dim suspicion for the unthinking, becomes
a vast argument, fraught with the deepest consequences, for
all who are acquainted with the recent progress of the anato-
mical and physiological sciences.

I now propose briefly to unfold that argument, and to set
forth, in a form intelligible to those who possess no special
acquaintance with anatomical science, the chief facts upon
which all conclusions respecting the nature and the extent of
the bonds which connect man with the brute world must be
based: I shall then indicate the one immediate conclusion
which, in my judgment, is justified by those facts, and I shall

* Tt will be understood that, in the preceding Essay, I have selected for notice
from the vast mass of papers which have been written upon the man-like Apes,
only those which scem to me to be of special moment.

TS =

~ eee Oe Cee eee

60

finally discuss the bearing of that conclusion upon the hypo-
theses which have been entertained respecting the Origin of

Man.

The facts to which I would first direct the reader’s atten-
tion, though ignored by many of the professed instructors
of the public mind, are easy of demonstration and are univer-
sally agreed to by men of science; while their significance is
so great, that whoso has duly pondered over them will, I
think, find little to startle him in the other revelations of
Biology. I refer to those facts which have been made known
by the study of Development.

It is a truth of very wide, if not of universal, application,

that every living creature commences its existence under a
form different from, and simpler than, that which it eventually

attains.

The oak is a more complex thing than the little rudi-
mentary plant contained in the acorn; the caterpillar is
more complex than the egg; the butterfly than the cater-
pillar; and each of these beings, in passing from its rudi-
mentary to its perfect condition, runs through a series of
changes, the sum of which is called its Development. In
the higher animals these changes are extremely complicated ;
but, within the last half century, the labours of such men as
Von Baer, Rathke, Reichert, Bischof, and Remak, have almost
completely unravelled them, so that the successive stages of
development which are exhibited by a Dog, for example, are
now as well known to the embryologist as are the steps of
the metamorphosis of the silk-worm moth to the school-boy.
It will be useful to consider with attention the nature and
the order of the stages of canine development, as an ex-
ample of the process in the higher animals generally.

The Dog, like all animals, save the very lowest (and further
inquiries may not improbably remove the apparent exception),
commences its existence as an egg: as a body which is, in
every sense, as much an egg as that of a hen, but is devoid of

61

that accumulation of nutritive matter which confers upon

the bird’s egg its exceptional size and domestic utility; and
wants the shell, which would not only be useless to an

animal incubated within the body of its parent, but would

cut it off from access to the source of that nutriment

which the young creature requires, but which the minute egg

of the mammal does not contain within itself.

The Dog’s egg is, in fact, a little spheroidal bag (Fig. 13),
formed of a delicate transparent membrane called the vitelline
membrane, and about =4, to zi>th of an inch in diameter. It
contains a mass of viscid nutritive matter—the ‘yelk’ —within
which is inclosed a second much more delicate spheroidal bag,
called the ‘germinal vesicle’ (a). un this, lastly, hes a more

solid rounded. body, termed the ‘ germinal spot ? (db).

Fie, 13.—A. Egg of the Dog, with the vitelline membrane burst, so as to give
exit to the yelk, the germinal vesicle (a), and its included
spot (0).
B.C.D.E.F. Successive changes of the yelk indicated in the text.
After Bischoff.

The egg, or ‘Ovum,’ is originally formed within a gland,
from which, in due season, it becomes detached, and passes
‘into the living chamber fitted for its protection and main-
tenance during the protracted process of gestation. Here,

wa nell says,

62

when subjected to the required conditions, this minute and
apparently insignificant particle of living matter, becomes
animated by a new and mysterious activity. The germinal
vesicle and spot cease to be discernible (their precise fate
being one of the yet unsolved problems of embryology), but
the yelk becomes circumferentially indented, as if an in-
visible knife had been drawn round it, and thus appears
divided into two hemispheres (Fig. 13, C).

By the repetition of this process in various planes, these
hemispheres become subdivided, so that four segments are
produced (D) ; and these, in like manner, divide and subdivide
again, until the whole yelk is converted into a mass of
granules, each of which consists of a minute spheroid of
yelk-substance, inclosing @ central particle, the so-called
‘nucleus’ (F). Nature, by this process, has attained much the
same result as that at which a human artificer arrives by his
operations in a brick field. She takes the rough plastic ma-
terial of the yelk and breaks it up into well-shaped tolerably
eyen-sized masses—handy for building up into any part of the
living edifice.

Next, the mass of organic bricks, or ‘cells’ as they are
technically called, thus formed, acquires an orderly arrange-
ment, becoming converted into a hollow spheroid with double
walls, Then, upon one side of this spheroid, appears a
thickening, and, by and bye, in the centre of the area of
thickening, a straight shallow groove (Fig. 14, A) marks the
central line of the edifice which is to be raised, or, in other
words, indicates the position of the middle line of the body
of the future dog. The substance bounding the groove on
each side next rises up into a fold, the rudiment of the side
wall of that long cavity, which will eventually lodge the spinal
marrow and the brain; and in the floor of this chamber ap-
pears a solid cellular cord, the so-called ‘notochord? One
end of the inclosed cavity dilates to form the head (Fig.14, B),
the other remains ‘narrow, and eventually becomes the tail ;
the side walls of the body are fashioned out of the downward

63

continuation of the walls of the groove; and from them, by
and bye, grow out little buds which, by degrees, assume the
shape of limbs. Watching the fashioning process stage by
stage, one is forcibly reminded of the modeller in clay. Every
part, every organ, is at first, as it were, pinched up rudely,
and sketched out in the rough; then shaped more accurately;
and only, at last, receives the touches which stamp its final
character.

Thus, at length, the young puppy assumes such a form as
is shewn in Fig. 14, C. In this condition it has a dispro-

Ne e——EEe

Fre. 14.—A. Earliest rudiment of the Dog. B. Rudiment further advanced,
showing the foundations of the head, tail, and vertebral column.
-C. The very young puppy, with attached ends of the yelk-sac
and allantois, and invested in the amnion.

bud-like limbs are unlike his legs.
The remains of the yelk, which have not yet been applied
to the nutrition and growth of the young animal, are con-
. tained in a sac attached to the rudimentary intestine, and
termed the yelk sac, or ‘umbilical vesicle.” Two membranous
| bags, intended to subserve respectively the protection and
nutrition of the young creature, have been developed from
the skin and from the under and hinder surface of the body ;

portionately large head, as dissimilar to that of a dog as the

64

the former, the so-called ‘ amnion, is a sac filled with fluid,
which invests the whole body of the embryo, and plays the
part of a sort of water-bed for it; the other, termed the
‘allantois,’ grows out, loaded with blood-vessels, from the
ventral region, and eventually applying itself to the walls of
the cavity, in which the developing organism is contained,
enables these vessels to become the channel by which the
stream of nutriment, required to supply the wants of the off-
spring, is furnished to it by the parent.

The structure which is developed by the interlacement of
the vessels of the offspring with those of the parent, and by
means of which the former is enabled to receive nourishment
and to get rid of effete matters, is termed the ‘ Placenta,’

It would be tedious, and it is unnecessary for my present
purpose, to trace the process of development further; suffice
it to say, that, by a long and gradual series of changes, the
rudiment here depicted and described, becomes a puppy, is
born, and then, by still slower and less perceptible steps,
passes into the adult Dog.

There is not much apparent resemblance between a barn-
door Fowl and the Dog who protects the farm-yard. Never-
theless the student of development finds, not only that the
chick commences its existence as an egg, primarily identical,
in all essential respects, with that of the Dog, but that the
yelk of this egg undergoes division—that the primitive groove
arises, and that the contiguous parts of the germ are fashioned,
by precisely similar methods, into a young chick, which, at
one stage of its existence, is so like the nascent Dog, that
ordinary inspection would hardly distinguish the two.

The history of the development of any other vertebrate
animal, Lizard, Snake, Frog, or Fish, tells the same story.
There’ is always, to begin with, an egg having the same essen-
tial structure as that of the Dog :—the yelk of that egg always
undergoes division, or ‘segmentation’ as it is often called: the
ultimate products of that segmentation constitute the building

Se ee

lat apis B MELO LUI IKE

65

materials for the body of the young animal; and this is built
up round a primitive groove, in the floor of which a notochord
is developed. Furthermore, there is a period in which the
young of all these animals resemble one another, not merely
in outward form, but in all essentials of structure, so closely,
that the differences between them are inconsiderable, while, in
their subsequent course, they diverge more and more widely
from one another. And it is a general law, that, the more
closely any animals resemble one another in adult structure,
the longer and the more intimately do their embryos resemble
one another: so that, for example, the embryos of a Snake
and of a Lizard remain like one another longer than do those
of a Snake and of a Bird; and the embryo of a Dog and of a
Cat remain like one another for a far longer period than do

those of a Dog and a Bird; or of a Dog and an Opossum;

or even than those of a Dog and a Monkey. —

Thus the study of development affords a clear test of close-
ness of structural affinity, and one turns with impatience to
inquire what results are yielded by the study of the develop-
ment of Man. Is he something apart? Does he originate
in a totally different way from Dog, Bird, Frog, and Fish,
thus justifying those who assert him to have no place in nature
and no real affinity with the lower world of animal life? Or
does he originate in a similar germ, pass through the same
slow and gradually progressive modifications,—depend on the
same contrivances for protection and nutrition, and finally
enter the world by the help of the same mechanism? The
reply is not doubtful for a moment, and has not been doubtful
any time these thirty years. Without question, the mode of
origin and the early stages of the development of man are
identical with those of the animals immediately: below him in
the scale :—without a doubt, in these respects, he is far nearer
the Apes, than the Apes are to the Dog.

The Human ovum is about ;4, of an inch in diameter, and ©

might be described in the same terms as that of the Dog, so
that I need only refer to the figure illustrative (15 A.) of its
F

‘
e

en

ECR:

ES a a

+3. eae A MOE cA Pe:

66

structure. It leaves the organ in which it is formed in a simi-
lar fashion and enters the organic chamber prepared for its
reception in the same way, the conditions of its development
being in all respects the same. It has not yet been possible
(and only by some rare chance can it ever be possible) to
study the human ovum in so early a‘developmental stage as
that of yelk division, but there is every reason to conclude
that the changes it undergoes are identical with those ex-
hibited by the ova of other vertebrated animals; for the
formative materials of which the rudimentary human body
is composed, in the earliest conditions in which it has been
observed. are the same as those of other animals. Some of
these earliest stages are figured below and,as will be seen, they
are strictly comparable to the very early states of the Dog;
the marvellous correspondence between the two which is kept
up, even for some time, as development advances, becoming
apparent by the simple comparison of the figures with those
on page 63.

Fre. 15.—A. Human ovum (after Kolliker). a. germinal vesicle. 6. germinal
spot. P aed
B. A very early condition of Man, with yelk-sac, allantois and amnion
(original).
©. A more advanced stage (after Kolliker), compare fig. 14, C.

Indeed, it is very long before the body of the young human
being can be readily discriminated from that of the young

ie

———

ae

eee 67

puppy; but, at a tolerably early period, the two become dis-
tinguishable by the different form of their adjuncts, the yelk-
sac and the allantois. The former, in the Dog, becomes long
and spindle-shaped, while in Man it remains spherical: the
latter, in the Dog, attains an extremely large size, and the
vascular processes which are developed from it and eventually
give rise to the formation of the placenta (taking root, as it
were, in the parental organism, so as to draw nourishment
therefrom, as the root of a tree extracts it from the soil) are
arranged in an encircling zone, while in Man, the allantois
remains comparatively small, and its vascular rootlets are
eventually restricted to one disk-like spot. Hence, while the
placenta of the Dog is like a girdle, that of Man has the
cake-like form, indicated by the name of the organ.

But, exactly in those respects in which the developing Man
differs from the Dog, he resembles the ape, which, like man,
has a spheroidal yelk-sac and a discoidal—sometimes par-
tially lobed-placenta. |

So that it is only quite in the later stages of development °
that the young human being presents marked differences
from the young .ape, while the latter departs as much from
the dog in its development, as the man does. .

Startling as the last assertion may appear to be, it is de-
monustrably true, and it alone appears to me sufficient to
place beyond all doubt the structural unity of man with the
rest of the animal world, and more particularly and closely
with the apes.

Thus, identical in the physical processes by which he ori-
nates—identical in the early stages of his formation—identical
in the mode of his nutrition before and after birth, with the
animals which lie immediately below him in the scale—Man,
if his adult and perfect structure be compared with theirs,
exhibits, as might he expected, a marvellous likeness of
organization. He resembles them as they resemble one
another—he differs from them as they differ from one

F2

ans lea iN LS late

68

another.—And, though these differences and resemblances
cannot be weighed and measured, their value may be readily
estimated ; the scale or standard of judgment, touching that
value, being afforded and expressed by the system of classi-
fication of animals now current among zoologists.

A careful study of the resemblances and differences pre-
sented by animals has, in fact, led naturalists to arrange
them into groups, or assemblages, all the members of each

group presenting a certain amount of definable resemblance,
and the number of points of similarity being smaller as the
group is larger and vicé versd. Thus, all creatures which
agree only in presenting the few distinctive marks of ani-
mality form the ‘Kingdom’ Antmatia. The numerous
animals which agree only in possessing the special characters
of Vertebrates form one ‘Sub-kingdom’ of this Kingdom.
Then the Sub-kingdom Verrrsrara is subdivided into the five
‘Classes,’ Fishes, Amphibians, Reptiles, Birds, and Mammals,
and these into smaller groups called ‘Orders;’ these into
‘Families’ and ‘ Genera ;’ while the last are finally broken up
into the smallest assemblages, which are distinguished by the
possession of constant, not-sexual, characters. These ultimate
groups are Species.

Every year tends to bring about a greater uniformity of
opinion throughout the zoological world as to the limits and
characters of these groups, great and small. At present, for
example, no one has the least doubt regarding the characters
of the classes Mammalia, Aves, or Reptilia; nor does the
question arise whether any thoroughly well-known animal
should be placed in one class or the other. Again, there is
avery general agreement respecting the characters and limits
of the orders of Mammals, and as to the animals which
are structurally necessitated to take a place in one or another
order.

No one doubts, for example, that the Sloth and the Ant-
eater, the Kangaroo and the Opossum, the Tiger and the
Badger, the Tapir and the Rhinoceros, are respectively mem-

69

bers of the same orders. These successive pairs of animals
may, and some do, differ from one another immensely, in
such matters as the proportions and structure of their limbs;
the number of their dorsal and lumbar vertebre; the adap-
tation of their frames to climbing, leaping, or running; the
number and form of their teeth; and the characters of their
skulls and of the contained brain. But, with all these dif-
ferences, they are so closely connected in all the more im-
portant and fundamental characters of their organization, and
so distinctly separated by these same characters from other
animals, that zoologists find it necessary to group them to-
gether as members of one order. And if any new animal
were discovered, and were found to present no greater dif-
ference from the Kangaroo and the Opossum, for example,
than these animals do from one another, the zoologist would
not only be logically compelled to rank it in the same order
with these, but he would not think of doing otherwise.
Bearing this obvious course of zoological reasoning in
mind, let us endeavour for a moment to disconnect our
thinking selves from the mask of humanity; let us imagine
ourselves scientific Saturnians, if you will, fairly acquainted

_ with such animals. as now inhabit the Earth, and employed in

discussing the relations they bear to a new and singular ‘ erect
and featherless biped,’ which some enterprising traveller,
overcoming the difficulties of space and gravitation, has
brought from that distant planet for our inspection, well pre-
served, may be, in acask of rum. We should all, at once,
agree upon placing him among the mammalian vertebrates ;
and his lower jaw, his molars, and his brain, would leave
no room for doubting the systematic position of the new
genus. among those mammals, whose young are nourished
during gestation by means of a placenta, or what are called
the ‘ placental mammals.’

Further, the most superficial study would at once convince
us that, among the orders of placental mammals, neither the
Whales nor the hoofed creatures, nor the Sloths and Ant-

TE ean A

76

eaters, nor the carnivorous Cats, Dogs, and Bears, still less
the Rodent Rats and Rabbits, or the Insectivorous Moles and
Hedgehogs, or the Bats, could claim our ‘Homo’ as one of
themselves.

There would remain then, but one order for comparison,
that of the Apes (using that word in its broadest sense), and
the question for discussion would narrow itself to this—is
Man so different from any of these Apes that he must form
an order by himself? Or does he differ less from them than
they differ from one another, and hence must take his place
in the same order with them ?

Being happily free from all real, or imaginary, personal in-
terest in the results of the inquiry thus set afoot, we should
proceed to weigh the arguments on one side and on the
other, with as much judicial calmness as if the question re-

lated to a new Opossum. We should endeavour to ascertain,
without seeking either to magnify or diminish them, all the
characters by which our new Mammal differed from the
Apes; and if we found that these were of less structural
value, than those which distinguish certain members of the
Ape order from others universally admitted to be of the
same order, we should undoubtedly place the newly dis-
covered tellurian genus with them.

I now proceed to detail the facts which seem to me to
leave us no choice but to adopt the last mentioned course.

It is quite certain that the Ape which most nearly ap-
proaches man, in the totality of its organization, is either
the Chimpanzee or the Gorilla; and as it makes no prac-
tical difference, for the purposes of my present argument,
which is selected for comparison, on the one hand, with Man,
and on the other hand, with the rest of the Primates,* I
shall select the latter (so far as its organization is known) —

TSS

RTT

* We are not at present thoroughly acquainted with the brain of the Gorilla,
and therefore, in discussing cerebral characters, I shall take that of the Chim-
panzce as my highest term among the Apes. '

71

as a brute now so celebrated in prose and verse, that all must

have heard of him, and have formed some conception of his
appearance, I shall take up as many of the most important
points of difference between man and this remarkable crea-
ture, as the space at my disposal will allow me to discuss,
and the necessities of the argument demand; and I shall in-
quire into the value and magnitude of these differences,
when placed side by side with those which separate the Go-

‘villa from other animals of the same order.

In the general proportions of the body and limbs there is
a remarkable difference between the Gorilla and Man, which
at once strikes the eye. The Gorilla’s brain-case is smaller,
its trunk larger, its lower limbs shorter, its upper limbs Annet
in proportion than those of Man.

I find that the the vertebral column of a full grown Go-
rilla, in the Museum of the Royal College of Surgeons, mea-
sures 27 inches along its anterior curvature, from the upper
edge of the atlas, or first vertebra of the neck, to the lower
extremity of the sacrum; that the arm, without the hand, is
314 inches long; that the leg, without the foot, is 264 inches
long; that the hand is 92 inches long; the foot 114 inches
long. .
In other words, taking the length of the spinal column as
100, the arm equals 115, the leg 96, the hand 36, and the
foot 41.

In the skeleton of a male Bosjesman, in the same collec-

tion, the proportions, by the same measurement, to the spinal

column, taken as 100, are—the arm 78, the leg 110, the hand
26, and the foot 32. In a woman of the same race the arm
is 83, and the leg 120, the hand and foot remaining the same.
In a European skeleton I find the arm to be 80, the leg 117,
the hand 26, the foot 35.

Thus the leg is not so different as it looks at first sight, in
its proportions to the spine in the Gorilla and in the Man—
being very slightly shorter than the spime in the former, and
between ;1; and + longer than the spine in the latter. The

foot is longer and the hand much longer in the Gorilla; but
the great difference is caused by the arms, which are very
much longer than the spine in the Gorilla, very much shorter
than the spine in the Man.

The question now arises how are the other Apes related to
the Gorilla in these respects—taking the length of the spine,
measured in the same way, at 100. In an adult Chimpanzee,
the arm is only 96, the leg 90, the hand 43, the foot 39 —so
that the hand and the leg depart more from the human pro-
portion and the arm less, while the foot is about the same as
in the Gorilla.

In the Orang, the arms are very much longer than i in the
Gorilla (122), while the legs are shorter (88) ; the foot is longer
than the hand (52 and 48), and both are much longer in
proportion to the spine.

In the other man-like Apes again, the Gibbons, these pro-
portions are still further altered; the length of the arms being
to that of the spinal column as 19 to 11; while the legs are

also a third longer than the spinal column, so as to be longer —
than in Man, instead of shorter. The hand is half as long as
the spinal column, and the foot, shorter than the hand, is
about =, ths of the length of the spinal column.

Thus ee is as much longer in the arms than the
Gorilla, as the Gorilla is longer in the arms than Man; while,
on the other hand, it is as much longer in the legs than the
Man, as the Man is longer in the legs than the Gorilla, so
that it contains within itself the extremest deviations from the
average length of both pairs of limbs (see the Frontispiece).

The Mandrill presents a middle condition, the arms and
legs being nearly equal in length, and both being shorter
than the spinal column ; while hand and foot have nearly the
same proportions to one another and to the spine, as in Man.

In the Spider monkey (Afeles) the leg is longer than the
spine, and the arm than the leg; and, finally, in that re-
markable Lemurine form, the Indri, (Lichanotus) the leg
is about -as long as the spinal column, while the arm is not

16)

more than 14 of its length; the hand having rather less and
the foot rather more, than one third the length of the spinal
column.

These examples might be greatly multiplied, but they suf-
fice to show that, in whatever proportion of its limbs the
Gorilla differs from Man, the other Apes depart still more
widely from the Gorilla and that, consequently, such differ-
ences of proportion can have no ordinal value. .

We may next consider the differences presented by the
trunk, consisting of the vertebral column, or backbone, and
the ribs and pelvis, or bony hip-basin, which are connected
with it, in Man and in the Gorilla respectively.

In Man, in consequence partly of the disposition of the —
articular surfaces of the vertebre, and largely of the elastic
tension of some of the fibrous bands, or ligaments, which con-
nect these vertebra together, the spinal column, as a whole,
has an elegant S-like curvature, being convex forwards in the
neck, concave in the back, convex in the loins, or lumbar
region, and concave again in the sacral region ; an arrange-
ment which gives much elasticity to the whole backbone, and
diminishes the jar communicated to the spine, and through
it to the head, by locomotion in the erect position.

Furthermore, under ordinary circumstances, Man has seven
vertebre in his neck, which are called cervical; twelve succeed
these, bearing ribs and forming the upper part of the back,
whence they are termed dorsal ; five lie in the loins, bearing
no distinct, or free, ribs, and are called lumbar ; five, united
together into a great bone, excavated in front, solidly wedged
in between the hip bones, to form the back of the pelvis, and.
known by the name of the sacrum, succeed these ; and finally,
three or four little more or less moveable bones, so small as
to be insignificant, constitute the coccyx or rudimentary tail.

In the Gorilla, the vertebral column is similarly divided
into cervical, dorsal, lumbar, sacral and coccygeal vertebrz, and
the total number of cervical and dorsal vertebrae, taken to-

i 2a

my

gether, is the same as in man; but the development of a pair
of ribs to the first lumbar vertebra, which is an exceptional
occurrence in Man, is the rule in the Gorilla; and hence, as
lumbar are distinguished from dorsal vertebree only by the
presence or absence of free ribs, the seventeen “ dorso-

lumbar” vertebre of the Gorilla are divided into thirteen
dorsal and four lumbar, while in Man they are twelve dorsal
and five lumbar.

Not only, however, does Man occasionally possess thirteen
pair of ribs,* but the Gorilla sometimes has fourteen pairs,
while an Orang-Utan skeleton in the Museum of the Royal
College of Surgeons has twelve dorsal and five lumbar verte-
bre, asin Man. Cuvier notes the same number in a Hylo-
bates. On the other hand, among the lower Apes, many
possess twelve dorsal and six or seven lumbar vertebre; the
Douroucouli has fourteen dorsal and eight lumbar, and a :
Lemur (Stenops tardigradus) has fifteen dorsal and nine
lumbar vertebre. -

The vertebral column of the Gorilla, as a whole, differs
from that of Man in the less marked character of its curves,
especially in the slighter convexity of the lumbar region.
Nevertheless, the curves are present, and are quite obvious in
young skeletons of the Gorilla and Chimpanzee which have
been prepared without removal of the ligaments. In young
Orangs similarly preserved, on the other hand, the spinal
column is either straight, or even concave forwards, through-

out the lumbar region.
Whether we take these characters then, or such minor

ones as those which are derivable from the proportional length
of the spines of the cervical vertebre, and the like, there is

* ‘More than once,” says Peter Camper, “have I met with more than six
lumbar vertebre inman. . . - Once I found thirteen ribs and four lumbar
vertebra.” Fallopius noted thirteen pair of ribs and only four lumbar vertebre;
and Eustachius once found eleven dorsal vertebre and six lumbar vertebree.
—‘(CEuvres de Pierre Camper,’ T. 1, p.42. As Tyson states, his ‘ Pygmie’
had thirteen pair of ribs and five lumbar vertebra. The question of the curves
of the spinal column in the Apes requires further investigation.

$9 son

,

75

no doubt whatsoever as to the marked difference between Man
and the Gorilla; but there is as little, that equally marked
differences, of the very same order, obtain between the Gorilla
and the lower apes.

, : ALT
Sen aft Th
YC (i UA RANT
Adan Hi i | t | iN ALN
AN thi i NN (1A) ( {f etl NNN
RM TTY UR BSN
nh pag 4 i 4 aw Ny
\ YN

Eee
Cae
= Saget

IN
@ if
Gorilla, “ONE

Giboon.

Fig. 16.—Front and side views of the bony pelvis of Man, the Gorilla and
Gibbon: reduced from drawings made from nature, of the same absolute length,
by Mr. Waterhouse Hawkins,

a ee se ET orn

LOGE A te EE . =

—

76

The Pelvis, or bony girdle of the hips, of Man is a strik-
ingly human part of his organization ; the expanded haunch
pones affording support for his viscera during his habitually
erect posture, and giving space for the attachment of the
great muscles which enable him to assume and to preserve
that attitude. In these respects the pelvis of the Gorilla differs
very considerably from his (Fig. 16). But go no lower than
the Gibbon, and see how vastly more he differs from the
Gorilla than the latter does from Man, even in this structure.
Look at the flat, narrow haunch bones—the long and narrow
passage—the coarse, outwardly curved, ischiatic prominences

on which the Gibbon habitually rests, and which are coated
by the so-called “ callosities,” dense patches of skin, wholly
absent in the Gorilla, in the Chimpanzee, and in the Orang,

asin Man! _

In the lower Monkeys and in the Lemurs the difference
becomes more striking still, the pelvis acquiring an alto-
gether quadrupedal character.

But now let us turn to a nobler and more characteristic
organ—that by which the human frame seems to be, and
indeed is, so strongly distinguished from all others, — I
mean the skull. The differences between a Gorilla’s skull and
a Man’s are truly immense (Fig. 17). In the former, the face,
formed largely by the massive jaw-bones, predominates over
the brain case, or cranium proper: in the latter, the propor-
tions of the two are reversed. In the Man, the occipital

- foramen, through which passes the great nervous cord con-

necting the brain with the nerves of the body, is placed just
behind the centre of the base of the skull, which thus be-
comes evenly balanced in the erect posture; in the Gorilla,
it lies in the posterior third of that base. In the Man, the
surface of the skull is comparatively smooth, and the supra-
ciliary ridges or brow prominences usually project but littl—
while, in the Gorilla, vast crests are developed upon the skull,
and the brow ridges overhang the cavernous orbits, like great
penthouses.

—_—

77

Sections of the skulls, however, show that some of the ap-
parent defects of the Gorilla’s cranium arise, in fact, not so
much from deficiency of brain case as from excessive deve-

lopment of the parts of the face. The cranial cavity is not ,

ill-shaped, and the forehead is not truly flattened or very re-
treating, its really well-formed curve being simply disguised
by the mass of bone which is built up against it (Fig. 17).
But the roofs of the orbits rise more obliquely into the
cranial cavity, thus diminishing the space for the lower part
of the anterior lobes of the brain, and the absolute capacity of
the cranium is far less than that of Man. So far as I am
aware, no human cranium belonging to an adult man has yet
been observed with a less cubical capacity than 62 cubic
inches, the smallest cranium observed in any race.of men by
Morton, measuring 63 cubic inches; while, on the other
hand, the most capacious Gorilla skull yet measured has a
content of not more than 34} cubic inches. Let us assume,
for simplicity’s sake, that the lowest Man’s skull has twice

_ the capacity of that of the highest Gorilla, *

* It has been affirmed that Hindoo crania sometimes contain as little as
27 ounces of water, which would give a capacity of about 46 cubic inches. The
minimum capacity which I have assumed above, however, is based upon the
valuable tables published by Professor R. Wagner in his “ Vorstudien zu einer
wissenschaftlichen Morphologie und Physiologie des menschlichen Gehirns.”
As the result of the careful weighing of more than 900 human brains, Pro-
fessor Wagner states that one-half weighed between 1200 and 1400 grammes,
and that about two-ninths, consisting for the most part of male brains, exceed
1400 grammes. The lightest brain of an adult male, with sound mental facul-
ties, recorded by Wagner, weighed 1020 grammes. As a gramme equals 15.4
grains, and a cubic inch of water contains 252.4 grains, this is equivalent to
62 cubic inches of water ; so that as brain is heavier than water, we are perfectly
safe against erring on the side of diminution in taking this as the smallest
capacity of any adult male human brain. The only adult male brain, weighing
as little as 970 grammes, is that of an idiot ; but the brain of an adult woman,
against the soundness of whose faculties nothing appears, weighed as little as
907 grammes (55.3 cubic inches of water); and Reid gives an adult female
brain of still smaller capacity. The heaviest brain (1872 grammes, or about
115 cubic inches) was, however, that of a woman ; next to it comes the brain
of Cuvier (1861 grammes), then Byron (1807 grammes), and then an insane

= — =
¢ as . = ar
|? Leia aaiacasekeaiaseaaiaiaseia
(2
i

78

No doubt, this is a very striking difference, but it loses
much of its apparent systematic value, when viewed by the
light of certain other equally indubitable facts respecting
cranial capacities.

The first of these is, that the difference in the volume of
the cranial cavity of different races of mankind is far greater,
absolutely, than that between the lowest Man and the highest
Ape, while, relatively, it is about the same. For the largest
human skull measured by Morton, contained 114 cubic inches,
that is to say, had very nearly double the capacity of the
smallest; while its absolute preponderance, of 52 cubic
inches—is far greater than that by which the lowest adult
male human cranium surpasses the largest of the Gorillas
(62 —341= 271). Secondly, the adult crania of Gorillas
which have as yet been measured differ among themselves by
nearly one-third, the maximum capacity being 34.5 cubic
inches, the minimum 24 cubic inches; and, thirdly, after
making all due allowance for difference of size, the cranial
capacities of some of the lower apes fall nearly as much,
relatively, below those of the higher Apes as the latter fall
below Man.

Thus, even in the important matter of cranial capacity,
Men differ more widely from one another than they do from
the Apes; while the lowest Apes differ as much, in propor-
tion, from the highest, as the latter does from Man. The last
proposition is still better illustrated by the study of the
modifications which other parts of the cranium undergo in
the Simian series.

It is the large proportional size of the facial bones and the

great projection of the jaws which confers upon the Gorilla’s
skull its small facial angle and brutal character. ;

person (1783 grammes). The lightest adult brain recorded (720 grammes) was
that of an idiotic female. The brains of five children, four years old, weighed
between 1275 and 992 grammes. So that it may be safely said, that an average
European child of four years old has a brain twice as large as that of an adult
Gorilla.

79

But if we consider the proportional size of the facial bones
to the skull proper only, the little Chrysothrix (Fig.17) differs

AUSTRALIAN.

CHRYSOTHRIX.

CYNOCEPHALUS,

Fig. 17.—Sections of the skulls of Man and various Apes, drawn so as to give
the cerebral cavity the same length in each case, thereby displaying the varying

|
|

Se TSE

patiiatneaandaatetiim anaes = = =
SN nae aT
= ee

nea —_ Rr

80

very widely from the Gorilla and, in the same way, as Man
does; while the Baboons (Cynocephalus, Fig.17) exaggerate
the gross proportions of the muzzle of the great Anthropoid,
so that its visage looks mild and human by comparison with
theirs. The difference between the Gorilla and the Baboon
is even greater than it appears at first sight; for the great
facial mass of the former is largely due to a downward de-
velopment of the jaws; an essentially human character, super-
added upon that almost purely forward, essentially brutal,
development of the same parts which characterizes the Baboon,
and yet more remarkably distinguishes the Lemur.

Similarly, the occipital foramen of Mycetes (Fig. 17); and
still more of the Lemurs, is situated completely in the pos-
terior face of the skull, or as much further back than that of
the Gorilla, as that of the Gorilla is further back than that of
Man; while, as if to render patent the futility of the attempt
to base any broad classificatory distinction on such a character,
the same group of Platyrhine, or American monkeys, to which
the Mycetes belongs, contains the Chrysothriz, whose occipital
foramen is situated far more forward than in any other ape,
and nearly approaches the position it holds in Man.

Again, the Orang’s skull is as devoid of excessively de-
veloped supraciliary prominences as a Man’s, though some
varieties exhibit great crests elsewhere (see p. 41) ; and in
some of the Cebine apes and in the Chrysothria, the cranium
is as smooth and rounded as that of Man himself.

What is true of these leading characteristics of the skull,
holds good, as may be imagined, of all minor features; so
that for every constant difference between the Gorilla’s skull

proportions of the facial bones. ‘The line dD indicates the plane of the tentorium,
which separates the cerebrum from the cerebellum ; d, the axis of the occipital
outlet of the skull. The extent of cerebral cavity behind c, which is a perpen-
dicular erected on } at the point where the tentorium is attached posteriorly,
indicates the degree to which the cerebrum overlaps the cerebellum—the space
occupied by which is roughly indicated by the dark shading. In comparing
these diagrams, it must be recollected, that figures on so small a scale as these
simply exemplify the statements in the text, the proof of which is to be found
in the objects themselves,

“——e

81

and the Man’s, a similar constant difference of the same

order (that is to say, consisting in excess or defect of the

same quality) may be found between the Gorilla’s skull and
that of some other ape. So that, for the skull, no less than
for the skeleton in general, the proposition holds good, that
the differences between Man and the Gorilla are of smaller J
value than those between the Gorilla and some other Apes:

In connection with the skull, I may speak of the teeth
—organs which have a peculiar classificatory value, and
whose resemblances and differences of number, form, and
succession, taken as a whole, are usually regarded as more
trustworthy indicators of affinity than any others.

Man is provided with two sets of teeth—milk teeth and
permanent teeth. The former consist of four incisors, or
cutting teeth ; two canines, or eye-teeth ; and four molars, or
grinders, in each jaw, making twenty in all. The latter
(Fig. 18) comprise four incisors, two canines, four small
grinders, called premolars or false molars, and six large |
grinders, or true molars in each jaw—making thirty-two in
all. The internal incisors are larger than the external pair,
in the upper jaw, smaller than the external pair, in the lower
jaw. The crowns of the upper molars exhibit four cusps, or
blunt-pointed elevations, and a ridge crosses the crown ob-
liquely, from the inner, anterior, cusp to the outer, posterior
cusp (Fig. 18 m*). The anterior lower molars have five cusps,
three external and two internal. The premolars have two
cusps, one internal and one external, of which the outer is
the higher,

In all these respects the dentition of the Gorilla may be
described in the same terms as that of Man ; but in other
matters it exhibits many and important differences (Fig. 18),

Thus the teeth of man constitute a regular and even
series—without any break and without any marked projec-
tion of one tooth above the level of the rest 3 a peculiarity
which, as Cuvier long ago showed, is shared by no other

G

ieee naan eermacemmioaas ams et e=<e Seen ret aa

Se SCE

82

mammal save one—as different a creature from man as can
_well be imagined—namely, the long extinct Anoplotherium.
f The teeth of the Gorilla, on the contrary, exhibit a break, or
interval, termed the diastema, in both jaws: in front of the
_eye-tooth, or between it and the outer incisor, in the upper

Cheiromys.

“Fra. 18.—Lateral views, of the same length, of the upper jaws of various

Primates. 7, incisors; ¢, canines; ym, premolars; m,molars. A line is drawn
_through the first molar of Man, Gorilla, Cynocephalus, and Cebus, and the
~ grinding surface of the second molar is shown in each, its anterior and internal
“angle being just above the m of m?.

ity

83

jaw; behind the-eye-tooth, or between it and the front false
molar, in the lower jaw. Into this break in the series, in
each jaw, fits the canine of the opposite jaw; the size of the
eye-tooth in the Gorilla being so great that it projects, like a
tusk, far beyond the general level of the other teeth, The
roots of the false molar teeth of the Gorilla, again, are more
complex than in Man, and the proportional size of the molars is
different. The Gorilla has the crown of the hindmost grinder
of the lower jaw more complex, and the order of eruption of
the permanent teeth is different; the permanent canines
making their appearance before the second and third molars
in Man, and after them in the Gorilla. .

Thus, while the teeth of the Gorilla closely resemble
those of Man in number, kind, and in the general pattern
of their crowns, they exhibit marked differences from those
of Man in secondary respects, such as relative size, number of
fangs, and order of appearance.

But, if the teeth of the Gorilla be compared with those

of an Ape, no further removed from it than a Cynocephalus,

or Baboon, it will be found that differences and resemblances
of the same order are easily observable ; but that many of
the points in which the Gorilla resembles Man are those in
which it differs from the Baboon 3 while various respects in
which it differs from Man are exaggerated in the Cynocephalus.
The number and the nature of the teeth remain the same in
the Baboon as in the Gorilla and in Man. But the pattern

of the Baboon’s upper molars is quite different from that

described above (Fig. 18), the canines are proportionally longer
and more knife-like ; the anterior premolar in the lower jaw
is specially modified; the posterior molar of the lower jaw is
still larger and more complex than in the Gorilla.

Passing from the old-world Apes to those of the new world,
we meet with a change of much greater importance than any
of these. In such a genus as Cebus, for example (Fig. 18), it
will be found that while in some secondary points, such as the
projection of the canines and the diastema, the resemblance

G 2

84

to the great ape is preserved ; in other and most important
respects, the dentition is extremely different. Instead of 20
teeth in the milk set, there are 24: instead of 32 teeth in the
permanent set, there are 36, the false molars being increased
from eight to twelve. And in form, the crowns of the molars
are very unlike those of the Gorilla, and differ far more
widely from the human pattern.

The Marmosets, on the other hand, exhibit the same num-
ber of teeth as Man and the Gorilla; but, notwithstanding
this, their dentition is very different, for they have four more
| false molars, like the other American monkeys — but as
they have four fewer true molars, ‘the total remains the
same. And passing from the American apes to the Lemurs,
the dentition becomes still more completely and essentially
different from that of the Gorilla. The incisors begin to
vary both in number and in form. The molars acquire, more
and more, a many-pointed, insectivorous character, and in one
Genus, the Aye-Aye (Cheiromys), the canines disappear, and
the teeth completely simulate those of a Rodent (Fig. 18).

Hence it is obvious that, greatly as the dentition of the
highest Ape differs from that of Man, it differs far more
widely from that of the lower and lowest Apes.

Whatever part of the animal fabric—whatever series of

muscles, whatever viscera might be selected for comparison—
the result would be the same—the lower Apes and the Gorilla
would differ more than the Gorilla and the Man. I cannot
attempt in this place to follow out all these comparisons in
detail, and indeed it is unnecessary I should do so. But cer-
tain real, or supposed, structural distinctions between man and
the apes remain, upon which so much stress has been laid,
that they require careful consideration, in order that the
true value may be assigned to those which are real, and the
emptiness of those which are fictitious may be exposed. I
refer to the characters of the hand, the foot, and the brain.
Man has been defined as the only animal possessed of two

+

85

hands terminating his fore limbs, and of two feet ending his
hind limbs, while it has been said that all the apes possess
four hands ; and he has been affirmed to differ fundamentally
from all the apes in the characters of his brain, which alone,
it has been strangely asserted and re-asserted, exhibits the
structures known to anatomists as the posterior lobe, the

_ posterior cornu of the lateral ventricle, and the hippocampus

minor. ‘
That the former proposition should have gained general
acceptance is not surprising—indeed, at first sight, appear-
ances are much in its favour: but, as for the second, one can
only admire'the surpassing courage of its enunciator, seeing

that it is an innovation which is not only opposed to generally

and justly accepted doctrines, but which is directly negatived
by the testimony of all original inquirers, who have specially
investigated the matter: and that it neither has been, nor
can be, supported by a single anatomical preparation. It

would, in fact, be unworthy of serious refutation, except for
the general and natural belief that deliberate and reiterated

assertions must have some foundation.

Before we can discuss the first point with advantage we
must consider with some attention, and compare together,

the structure of the human ‘hand and that of the human

foot, so that we may have distinct and clear ideas of what
constitutes a hand and what a foot.

The external form of the human hand is familiar enough to
every one. It consists of a stout wrist followed by a broad palm,
formed of flesh, and tendons, and skin, binding together four
bones, and dividing into four long and flexible digits, or fingers,
each of which bears on the back of its last joint a broad and
flattened nail, The longest cleft between any two digits is
rather less than half as long as the hand. From the outer
side of the base of the palm a stout digit goes off, having only
two joints instead of three ; so short, that it only reaches to a
little beyond the middle of the first joint of the finger next

86

it; and further remarkable by its great mobility, m conse-
quence of which it can be directed outwards, almost at a
right angle to the rest. This digit is called the ‘ pollex, or
thumb ; and, like the others, it bears a flat nail upon the back
of its terminal joint. In consequence of the proportions and
mobility of the thumb, it is what is termed “ opposable ;” i
other words, its extremity can, with the greatest ease, be
brought into contact with the extremities of any of the
fingers ; a property upon which the possibility of our carrying
into effect the conceptions of the mind so largely depends.
“The external form of the foot differs widely from that of
the hand; and yet, when closely compared, the two present
sotne singular resemblances. Thus the ankle corresponds in
a manner with the wrist; the sole with the palm; the toes
with the fingers; the great toe with the thumb. But the
toes, or digits of the foot, are far shorter in proportion than
the digits of the hand, and are less moveable, the want of
mobility being most striking in the great toe—which, again,
is very much larger in proportion to the other toes than the
thumb to the fingers. In considering this point, however, it
must not be forgotten that the civilized great toe, confined.
and cramped from childhood upwards, is seen to a great disad-
vantage, and that in uncivilized and barefooted people it
retains a great amount of mobility, and even some sort of
opposability. The Chinese boatmen are said to be able to
pullan oar; the artisans of Bengal to weave, and the Carajas
to’ steal fishhooks by its help; though, after all, it must be
recollected that the structure of its joints and the arrange-
ment of its bones, necessarily render its prehensile action far
less:perfect than that of the thumb. |
But to gain a precise conception of the resemblances and
differences of the hand and foot, and of the distinctive charac-
ters of each, we must look below the skin, and compare the
bony framework and its motor apparatus in each (Fig. 19).
-The skeleton of the hand exhibits, in the region which we
term the wrist, and which is technically called the carpus—

ee 7

87

two rows of closely fitted polygonal bones, four in each row, |
which are tolerably equal in size. The bones of the first row |

with the bones of the forearm, form the wrist joint, and are
arranged side by side, no one greatly exceeding or overlapping
the rest.

The four bones of the second row of the carpus bear the
four long bones which support the palm of the hand.. The

Hand.

Fig. 19.—The skeleton of the Hand and Foot of Man reduced from Dr. Carter’s
drawings in Gray’s ‘ Anatomy.’ The hand is drawn to a larger scale than the
foot. ‘The line aa in the hand indicates the boundary between the carpus and the
metacarpus; bd that between the latter and the proximal phalanges; ¢¢ marks
the ends of the distal phalanges. The line a’ a’ in the foot indicates the boundary
between the tarsus and metatarsus; D' d’ marks that between the metatarsus and
the proximal phalanges ; and c’c’ bounds the ends of the distal phalanges: ca,
the calcaneum ; as, the astragalus ; sc, the scaphoid bone in the tarsus.

Sate Ee te é aller =

ET EN I re NE RG OR AY RN RR

88

fifth bone of the same character is articulated in a much more
free and moveable manner than the others, with its carpal
bone, and forms the base of the thumb. These are called
metacarpal bones, and they carry the phalanges, or bones of
the digits, of which there are two in the thumb, and three in
each of the fingers. |

The skeleton of the foot is very like that of the hand in
some respects. Thus there are three phalanges in each of the
lesser toes, and only two in the great toe, which answers to
the thumb. There is a long bone, termed metatarsal,
answering to the metacarpal, for each digit; and the tarsus
which corresponds with the carpus, presents four short poly-
gonal bones in a row, which correspond very closely with the
four carpal bones of the second row of the hand. In other
respects the.foot differs very widely from the hand. Thus
the great toe is the longest digit but one; and its metatarsal
is far less moveably articulated with the tarsus, than the
metacarpal of the thumb with the carpus. But a far more
important distinction lies in the fact that, instead of four
more tarsal bones there are only three; and that these three
are not arranged side by side, or in one row. One of them, the

os calcis or heel bone (ca), lies externally, and sends back the
large projecting heel; another, the astragalus (as), rests on
this by one face, and by another, forms, with the bones of the

leg, the ankle joint; while a third face, directed forwards, is
separated from the three inner tarsal bones of the row next
the metatarsus by a bone called the scaphoid (sc).

Thus there is a fundamental difference in the structure of
the foot and the hand, observable when the carpus and the
tarsus are contrasted; and there are differences of degree
noticeable when the proportions and the mobility of the
metacarpals and metatarsals, with their respective digits, are
compared together.

The same two classes of differences become obvious when
the muscles of the hand are compared with those of the
foot.

— oe a Soe. "

89

Three principal sets of muscles, called “ flexors,” bend the

fingers and thumb, as in clenching the fist, and three sets,
—the extensors—extend them, as in straightening the fingers.
These muscles are all “long muscles;”’ that is to say, the fleshy
part of each, lymg in and being fixed to the bones of the arm,
is, at the other end, continued into tendons, or rounded cords,
which pass into the hand, and are ultimately fixed to the
bones which are to be moved. Thus, when the fingers are

bent, the fleshy parts of the flexors of the fingers, placed in |

the arm, contract, in virtue of their peculiar endowment as
muscles ; and pulling the tendinous cords, connected with
their ends, cause them to pull down the bones of the fingers
towards the palm.

Not only are the principal flexors of the fingers and of the
thumb long muscles, but they remain quite distinct from one
another throughout their whole length.

In the foot, there are also three principal flexor muscles of
the digits or toes, and three principal extensors ; but one ex-
tensor and one flexor are short muscles; that is to say, their

fleshy parts are not situated in the leg (which corresponds

with the arm), but in the back and in the sole of the foot—
regions which correspond with the back and the palm of the
hand.

Again, the tendons of the long flexor of the toes, and of
the long flexor of the great toe, when they reach the sole of
the foot, do not remain distinct from one another, as the
flexors in the palm of the hand do, but they become united
and commingled in a very curious manner—while their
united tendons receive an accessory muscle connected with
the heel-bone.

But perhaps the most absolutely distinctive character
about the muscles of the foot is the existence of what is
termed the peroneus longus, a long muscle fixed to the outer
bone of the leg, and sending its tendon to the outer ankle,
behind and below which it passes, and then crosses the foot
obliquely to be attached to the base of the great toe. No

ee eee ee nee nnareoamnesnent

ir _
if pon arn

am arr carseat an nS

LTE LS oat

90

muscle in the hand exactly corresponds with this, which is
eminently a foot muscle. .
To resume—the foot of man is distinguished from his hand
by the following absolute anatomical differences :—
1. By the arrangement of the tarsal bones.
2. By having a short flexor and a short extensor muscle
of the digits.
3. By possessing the muscle termed peroneus longus.
And if we desire to ascertain whether the terminal division
of a limb, in other Primates, is to be called a foot or a hand,
it is by the presence or absence of these characters that we
must be guided, and not by the mere proportions and greater
or lesser mobility of the great toe, which may vary indefi-
nitely without any fundamental alteration in the structure
of the foot.

Keeping these considerations in mind, let us now turn to
the limbs of the Gorilla. The terminal division of the fore
limb presents no difficulty—bone for bone and muscle for
muscle, are found to be arranged essentially as in man, or with
such minor differences as are found as varieties in man. The
Gorilla’s hand is clumsier, heavier, and has a thumb some-
what shorter in proportion than that of man; but no one has
ever doubted its being a true hand.

At first sight, the termination of the hind limb of the Go-
rilla looks very hand-like, and as it is still more so in many
of the lower apes, it is not wonderful that the appellation
*« Quadrumana,” or four-handed creatures, adopted from the
older anatomists* by Blumenbach, and unfortunately rendered

* In speaking of the foot of his “ Pygmie,” Tyson remarks, p..13 :—

‘“‘ But this part in the formation and in its function too, being liker a Hand
than a Foot: for the distinguishing this sort of animals from others, I have
thought whether it might not be reckoned and called rather Quadru-manus
than Quadrupes, é.e. a four-handed rather than a four-footed animal.”

As this passage was published in 1699, M. I. G. St. Hilaire is clearly in
error in ascribing the invention of the term “ quadrumanous” to Buffon, though
“bimanous” may belong to him. Tyson uses “Quadrumanus” in several

»

~~

91

current by Cuvier, should have gained such wide acceptance
as a name for the Simian group. But the most cursory ana-
tomical investigation at once proves that the resemblance of the
so-called “hind hand” to a true hand, is only skin deep, and
that, in all essential respects, the hind limb of the Gorilla is
as truly terminated by a foot as that of man. The tarsal
bones, in all important circumstances of number, disposition,
and form, resemble those of man (Fig. 20). The metatarsals
and digits, on the other hand, are proportionally longer and
more slender, while the great toe is not only proportionally
shorter and weaker, but its metatarsal bone is united by a
more moveable joint with the tarsus. At the same time, the
foot is set more obliquely upon the leg than in man.

As to the muscles, there is a short flexor, a short extensor,
and a peroneus longus, while the tendons of the long flexors

of the great toe and of the other toes are united together

and with an accessory fleshy bundle.
The hind limb of the Gorilla, therefore, ends in a true foot,
with a very moveable great toe. It is a prehensile foot,

indeed, but is in no sense a hand: it is a foot which differs _

from that of man not in any fundamental character, but
in mere proportions, in the degree of mobility, and in the
secondary arrangement of its parts. :

It must not be supposed, however, because I speak of these
differences as not fundamental, that I wish to underrate
their value. They are important enough in their way, the
structure of the foot being in strict correlation with that
of the.rest of the organism in each case. Nor can it be
doubted that the greater division of physiological labour in
Man, so that the function of support is thrown wholly on the
leg and foot, is an advance in organization of very great
moment to him; but, after all, regarded anatomically, the

places, asatp.91..... “ Our Pygmie is no Man, yor yet the common Ape,
but a sort of Animal between both ; and though a Biped, yet of the Quadru-
manus-kind : though some Men too have been observed to use their Feet like
Hands, as I have seen several,”

a RN

92

resemblances between the foot of Man and the foot of the
Gorilla are far more striking and important than the differ-
ences.

I have dwelt upon this pomt at length, because it is one
regarding which much delusion prevails; but I might have
passed it over without detriment to my argument, which only
requires me to show that, be the differences between the
hand and foot of Man and those of the Gorilla what they
may—the differences between those of the Gorilla, and those
of the lower Apes are much greater.

It is not necessary to descend lower in the scale than the
Orang for conclusive evidence on this head.

The thumb of the Orang differs more from that of the
Gorilla than the thumb of the Gorilla differs from that of
Man, not only by its shortness, but by the absence cf any
special long flexor muscle. The carpus of the Orang, like

SB

Gorilla ~~.

F1¢. 20.—Foot of Man, Gorilla, and Orang-Utan of the same absolute length,
to show the differences in proportion of each. Letters as in Fig. 19. Reduced
from original drawings by Mr. Waterhouse Hawkins,

93

that of most lower apes, contains nine bones, while in the
Gorilla, as in Man and the Chimpanzee, there are only eight.

The Orang’s foot (Fig. 20) is still more aberrant; its very
long toes and short tarsus, short great toe, short and raised
heel, great obliquity of articulation in the leg, and absence of
a long flexor tendon to the great toe, separating it far more
widely from the foot of the Gorilla than the latter is separated
from that of Man.

But, in some of the lower apes, the hand and foot diverge
still more from those of the Gorilla, than they do in the
Orang. The thumb ceases to be opposable in the American
monkeys; is reduced to a mere rudiment covered by the
skin in the Spider Monkey; and is directed forwards and

armed with a curved claw like the other digits, in the Mar- |

Astesaiacccisaa ena

mosets—so that, in all these cases, there can be no doubt |

-but that the hand is more different from that of the Gorilla

than the Gorilla’s hand is from Man’s. dec

And as to the foot, the great toe of the Marmoset is still
more insignificant in proportion than that of the Orang—
while in the Lemurs it is very large, and as completely thumb-
like and opposable as in the Gorilla—but in these animals
the second toe is often irregularly modified, and in some
species the two principal bones of the tarsus, the astragalus
and the os calcis, are so immensely elongated as to render
the foot, so far, totally unlike that of any other mammal.

So with regard to the muscles. The short flexor of the
toes of the Gorilla differs from that of Man by the circum:
stance that one slip of the muscle is attached, not to the heel
bone, but to the tendons of the long flexors. The lower Apes

depart from the Gorilla by an exaggeration of the same -

character, two, three, or more, slips becoming fixed to the
long flexor tendons—or by a multiplication of the slips.—
Again, the Gorilla differs slightly from Man in the mode of
interlacing of the long flexor tendons: and the lower apes
differ from the Gorilla in exhibiting yet other, sometimes
very complex, arrangements of the same parts, and occa-
sionally in the absence of the accessory fleshy bundle.

94

Throughout all these modifications it must be recollected
that the foot loses no one of its essential characters. Every
Monkey and Lemur exhibits the characteristic arrangement
of tarsal bones, possesses a short flexor and short extensor
muscle, and a peroneus longus. Varied as the proportions and.
appearance of the organ may be, the terminal division of the
hind limb remains, in plan and principle of construction, a

foot, and never, in those respects, can be confounded with a
hand.

Hardly any part of the bodily frame, then, could be found
- better calculated to illustrate the truth that the structural
»\ differences between Man and the highest Ape are of less value

| than those between the highest and the lower Apes, than the

‘hand or the foot, and yet, perhaps, there is one organ the

\ study of which enforces the same conclusion in a still more
striking manner—and that is the Brain.

But before entering upon the precise question of the
amount of difference between the Ape’s brain and that of Man,
it is necessary that we should clearly understand what consti-
tutes a great, and what a small difference in cerebral structure ;
and we shall be best enabled to do this by a brief study of the
chief modifications which the brain exhibits in the series of
vertebrate animals.

The brain of a fish is very small, compared with the spinal
cord into which it is continued, and with the nerves which
come off from it: of the segments of which it is composed
—the olfactory lobes, the cerebral hemisphere, and the suc-
ceeding divisions—no one predominates so much over the rest
as to obscure or cover them ; and the so-called optic lobes are,
. frequently, the largest masses of all. In Reptiles, the mass of
the brain, relatively to the spinal cord, increases and the cere-
bral hemispheres begin to predominate over the other parts ;
while in Birds this predominance is still more marked. The
brain of the lowest Mammals, such as the duck-billed Platypus _
and the Opossums and Kangaroos, exhibits a still more
definite advance in the same direction. The cerebral hemi-
spheres have now so much increased in size as, more or less,

95

to hide the representatives of the optic lobes, which remain
comparatively small, so that the brain of a Marsupial is ex-
tremely different from that of a Bird, Reptile, or Fish. A
step higher in the scale, among the placental Mammals, the
structure of the brain acquires a vast modification—not that
it appears much altered externally, in a Rat or in a Rabbit,
from what it isin a Marsupial—nor that the proportions of
its parts are much changed, but an apparently new structure
is found between the cerebral hemispheres, connecting them
together, as what is called the ‘ great commissure’ or ‘corpus

callosum.’ The subject requires careful re-investigation, but if .

the currently received statements are correct, the appearance
of the ‘corpus callosum’ in the placental mammals is the
greatest and most sudden modification exhibited by the brain
in the whole series of vertebrated animals—it is the greatest

leap anywhere made by Nature in her brain work. For the ©

two halves of the brain being once thus knit together, the
progress of cerebral complexity is traceable through a complete

series of steps from the lowest Rodent, or Insectivore, to Man;

and that complexity consists, chiefly, in the disproportionate
development of the cerebral hemispheres and of the cerebel-

lum, but especially of the former, in respect to the other parts
of the brain.

In the lower placental mammals, the cerebral hemispheres
leave the proper upper and posterior face of the cerebellum
completely visible, when the brain is viewed from above, but,
in the higher forms, the hinder part of each hemisphere, sepa-
rated only by the tentorium (p. 99) from the anterior face of
the cerebellum, inclines backwards and downwards, and
grows out, as the so-called “ posterior lobe,” so as at length
to overlap and hide the cerebellum. In all Mammals,
each cerebral hemisphere contains a cavity which is termed
the ‘ventricle’ and as this ventricle is prolonged, on the one
hand, forwards, and on the other downwards, into the sub-
stance of the hemisphere, it is said to have two horns or
‘cornua,’ an ‘anterior cornu,’ and a ‘descending cornu.’
When the posterior lobe is well developed, a third prolonga-

| a a
| publ aera a

———

96

tion of the ventricular cavity extends into it, and is called the
posterior cornu.”

In the lower and smaller forms of placental Mammals the
surface of the cerebral hemispheres is either smooth or evenly
rounded, or exhibits a very few grooves, which are technically
termed ‘ sulci,’ separating ridges or ‘ convolutions’ of the sub-
stance of the brain ; and the smaller species of all orders tend
to a similar smoothness of brain. But, in the higher orders,
and especially the larger members of these orders, the grooves,
or sulci, become extremely numerous, and the intermediate
convolutions proportionately more complicated in their mean-
derings, until, in the Elephant, the Porpoise, the higher Apes,
and Man, the cerebral surface appears a perfect labyrinth of
tortuous foldings.

Where a posterior lobe exists and presents its customary
cavity—the posterior cornu—it commonly happens that a
particular sulcus appears upon the inner and under surface
of the lobe, parallel with and beneath the floor of the cornu—
which is, as it were, arched over the roof of the sulcus. It
is as if the groove had been formed by indenting the floor of
the posterior horn from without with a blunt instrument, so

that the floor should rise as a convex eminence. Now this
eminence is what has been termed the ‘ Hippocampus minor ;”
the ‘Hippocampus major’ being a larger eminence in the
floor of the descending cornu. What may be the functional
importance of either of these structures we know not.

As if to demonstrate, by a striking example, the impossi-
bility of erecting any cerebral barrier between man and the
apes, Nature has provided us, in the latter animals, with an
almost complete series of gradations from brains little higher
than that of a Rodent, to brains little lower than that of Man.
And it is a remarkable circumstance, that though, so far as
our present knowledge extends, there is one true structural
break in the series of forms of Simian brains, this hiatus
does not lie between Man and the man-like apes, but between
the lower and the lowest Simians ; or, in other words, between

—_-

97

the old and new world apes and monkeys, and the Lemurs,
Every Lemur which has yet been examined, in fact, has its
cerebellum partially visible from above, and its posterior lobe,
with the contained posterior cornu and hippocampus minor,
more or less rudimentary. Every Marmoset, American
monkey, old world monkey, Baboon, or Man-like ape, on the
contrary, has its cerebellum entirely hidden, posteriorly, by the
cerebral lobes, and possesses a large posterior cornu, with a
well developed hippocampus minor.

In many of these creatures, such as the Saimiri (Chrysothria),
the cerebral lobes overlap and extend much further behind
the cerebellum, in proportion, than they do in man (Fig. 17)—
and itis quite certain that, in all, the cerebellum is completely
covered behind, by well developed posterior lobes. The fact
can be verified by every one who possesses the skull of any old
or new world monkey. For, inasmuch as the brain in all mam-
mals completely fills the cranial cavity, it is obvious that a cast

of the interior of the skull will reproduce the general form of

the brain, at any rate with such minute and, for the present
purpose, utterly unimportant differences as may result from
the absence of the enveloping membranes of the brain in the
dry skull. But if such a cast be made in plaster, and com-
pared with a similar cast of the interior of a human skull,
it will be obvious that the cast of the cerebral chamber, re«
presenting the cerebrum of the ape, as completely covers over
and overlaps the cast of the cerebellar chamber, representing
the cerebellum, as it does in the man (Fig. 21). A careless
observer, forgetting that a soft structure like the brain loses
its proper shape the moment it is taken out of the skull,
may indeed mistake the uncovered condition of the cere-
bellum of an extracted and distorted brain for the xiatural
relations of the parts; but his error must become patent
even to himself if he try to replace the brain within the
cranial chamber. To suppose that the cerebellum of an ape
is naturally uncovered behind is a miscomprehension com-
parable only to that of one who should imagine that a man’s

H

ae a a =

98

lungs always occupy but a small portion of the thoracic cavity
—because they do so when the chest is opened, and their
elasticity is no longer neutralized by the pressure of the air.

Chimpanzee.

Fig. 21.—Drawings of the internal casts of a Man’s and of a Chimpanzee’s
skull, of the same absolute length, and placed in corresponding positions,
A. Cerebrum; B. Cerebellum, The former drawing is taken from a cast in the
Museum of the Royal College of Surgeons, the latter from the photograph of
the cast’ of a Chimpanzee’s skull, which illustrates the paper by Mr. Marshall
‘ Onthe Brain of the Chimpanzee’ in the Natural History Review for July, 1861.
The sharper definition of the lower edge of the cast of the cerebral chamber in
the Chimpanzee arises from the circumstance that the tentorium remained in that
skull and not in the Man’s. ‘The cast more accurately represents the brain in
Chimpanzee than in the Man; and the great backward projection of the pos-
terior lobes of the cerebrum of the former, beyond the cerebellum, is conspicuous:

vo

And the error is the less excusable, as it must become
apparent to every one who examines a section of the skull of
any ape above a Lemur, without taking the trouble to make
a cast of it. For there is a very marked groove in every
such skull, as in the human skull—which indicates the line
of attachment of what is termed the tentoriwm—a sort of
parchment-like shelf, or partition, which, in the recent state,
is interposed between the cerebrum and cerebellum, and
prevents the former from pressing upon the latter, (see
Fig. 17). :

This groove, therefore, indicates the line of separation
between that part of the cranial cavity which contains the
cerebrum, and that which contains the cerebellum; and as
the brain exactly fills the cavity of the skull, it is obvious
that the relations of these two parts of the cranial cavity at.
once informs us of the relations of their contents. Now in
man, in all the old world, and in all the new world Simie,
with one exception, when the face is directed forwards,
this line of attachment of the tentorium, or impression for the
lateral sinus, as it is technically called, is nearly horizontal,
and the cerebral chamber invariably overlaps or projects
behind the cerebellar chamber. In the Howler Monkey or
Mycetes (see Fig. 17), the line passes obliquely upwards and
backwards, and the cerebral overlap is almost nil; while in
the Lemurs, as in the lower mammals, the line is much more
inclined in the same direction, and the cerebellar chamber
projects considerably beyond the cerebral.

When the gravest errors respecting points so easily settled
as this question respecting the posterior lobes, can be authorita-
tively propounded, it is no wonder that matters of observation,
of no very complex character, but still requiring a certain
amount of care, should have fared worse. Any one who
cannot see the posterior lobe in an ape’s brain is not likely
to give a very valuable opinion respecting the posterior cornu
or the hippocampus minor. If a man cannot see a church,
it is preposterous to take his opinion about its altar-piece or

H 2

100

painted window—so that I do not feel bound to enter upon
any discussion of these points, but content myself with assur-
ing the reader that the posterior cornu and the hippocampus
minor, have now been seen—usually, at least as well developed
as in man, and often better—not only in the Chimpanzee,
the Orang, and the Gibbon, but in all the genera of the old
world baboons and monkeys, and in most of the new world
forms, including the Marmosets.*

In fact, all the abundant and trustworthy evidence (con-
sisting of the results of careful investigations directed to the
determination of these very questions, by skilled anatomists)
which we now possess, leads to the conviction that, so far
from the posterior lobe, the posterior cornu, and the hippo-
campus minor, being structures peculiar to and characteristic
of man, as they have been over and over again asserted to
be, even after the publication of the clearest demonstration
of the reverse, it is precisely these structures which are the
most marked cerebral characters common to man with the
apes. They are among the most distinctly Simian pecu-
liarities which the human organism exhibits.

As to the convolutions, the brains of the apes exhibit
every stage of progress, from the almost smooth brain of the
Marmoset, to the Orang and the Chimpanzee, which fall but.
little below Man. And it is most remarkable that, as soon as
all the principal sulci appear, the pattern according to which
they are arranged is identical with that of the corresponding
sulci of man. The surface of the brain of a monkey exhibits

a sort of skeleton map of man’s, and in the man-like apes
the details become more and more filled in, until it is only in
minor characters, such as the greater excavation of the ante-
rior lobes, the constant presence of fissures usually absent in
man, and the different disposition and proportions of some
eonvolutions, that the Chimpanzee’s or the Orang’s brain can
be structurally distinguished from Man’s.

* See the note at the end of this essay for a succinct history of the controversy
to which allusion is here made.

Poo
i Arete
~
eat
hoe Set
pee Ty 27.
oe
va a
r-

ay
vy 4
\

i We
ATT UE ta \
\\" mas '

.
ve

ein
Arif

Chimpanzee.

Fic. 22.—Drawings of the cerebral hemispheres of a Man and of a Chim-
panzee of the same length, in order to show the relative proportions of the
parts: the former taken from a specimen, which Mr. Flower, Conservator of the
Museum of the Royal College of Surgeons, was good enough to dissect for me ;
the latter, from the photograph of a similarly dissected Chimpanzee’s brain, given
in Mr. Marshall’s paper above referred to. a, posterior lobe; 0, lateral ventricle;
¢, posterior cornu; 2%, the hippocampus minor.

2 CT ER

Sssstsiit cdi nenta cba nabicilipdeidtaaiesiadibeinisbaabadionmee ccnaouasomaeeneas lism cs

102

So far as cerebral structure goes, therefore, it is clear that
Man differs less from the Chimpanzee or the Orang, than
these do even from the Monkeys, and that the difference

between the brains of the Chimpanzee and of Man is almost
insignificant, when compared with that between the Chim-

panzee brain and that of a Lemur.

It must not be overlooked, however, that there is a very
striking difference in absolute mass and weight between the
lowest human brain and that of the highest ape —a difference
which is all the more remarkable when we recollect that a
full grown Gorilla is probably pretty nearly twice as heavy_as
a Bosjes man, or as many an European woman. It may be
doubted whether a healthy human adult brain ever weighed
less than thirty-one or -two ounces, or that the heaviest Gorilla
brain has exceeded twenty ounces. =:

This is a very noteworthy circumstance, and doubtless will
one day help to furnish an explanation of the great gulf which
intervenes between the lowest man and the highest ape in
intellectual power ;* but it has little systematic value, for the _

* Tsay help to furnish: for I by no means believe that it was any original
difference of cerebral quality, or quantity, which caused that divergence between
the human and the pithecoid stirpes, which has ended in the present enormous
gulf between them. It is no doubt perfectly true, in a certain sense, that all
difference of function is a result of difference of structure; or, in other words,
of difference in the combination of the primary molecular forces of living sub-
stance ; and, starting from this undeniable axiom, objectors occasionally, and
with much seeming plausibility, argue that the vast intellectual chasm between
the Ape and Man implies a corresponding structural chasm in the organs of the
intellectual functions ; so that, it is said, the non-discovery of such vast differ-
ences proves, not that they are absent, but that Science is incompetent to detect
them. A very little consideration, however, will, I think, show the fallacy of
this reasoning. Its validity hangs upon the assumption, that intéllectual power
depends altogether on the brain—whereas the brain is only one condition out
of many on which intellectual manifestations depend ; the others being, chiefly,
the organs of the senses and the motor apparatuses, especially those which are
concerned in prehension and in the production of articulate speech.

A man born dumb, notwithstanding his great cerebral mass and his inheritance
of strong intellectual instincts, would be capable of few higher intellectual
manifestations than an Orang or a Chimpanzee, if he were confined to the society

103

simple reason. that, as may be concluded from what has

been already said respecting cranial capacity, the difference

in weight of brain between the highest and the lowest men is
far greater, both relatively and absolutely, than that between
the lowest man and the highest ape. The latter, as has been
seen, is represented by, say twelve, ounces of cerebral sub-
stance absolutely, or by 32: 20 relatively ; but as the largest
recorded human brain weighed between 65 and 66 ounces,
the former difference is represented by more than 33 ounces
absolutely, or by 65: 32 relatively. Regarded systematically
the cerebral differences, of man and apes, are not of more than
generic value—his Family distinction resting chiefly on his
dentition, his pelvis, and his lower limbs.

Thus, whatever system of organs be studied, the comparison
of their modifications in the ape series leads to one and the
same result—that the structural differences which separate

Man from the Gorilla and the Chimpanzee are not so great. a

as those which separate the Gorilla from the lower apes.

of dumb associates. And yet there might not be the slightest discernible dif-
ference between his brain and that of a highly intelligent and cultivated person.
The dumbness might be the result of a defective structure of the mouth, or of
the tongue, or amere defective innervation of these parts; or it might result from
congenital deafness, caused by some minute defect of the internal ear, which
only a careful anatomist could discover.

The argument, that because there is an immense difference between a Man's
intelligence and an Ape’s, therefore, there must be an equally immense difference
between their brains, appears to me to be about as well based as the reasoning
by which one should endeavour to prove that, because there is a “ great gulf”
between a watch that keeps accurate time and another that will not go at all,
there is therefore a great structural hiatus between the two watches, A hair
in the balance-wheel, a little rust on 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.

And believing, as I do, with Cuvier, that the possession of articulate speech is
the grand distinctive character of man (whether it be absolutely peculiar to him
or not), I find it very easy to comprehend, that some equally inconspicuous struc-
tural difference may have been the primary cause of the immeasurable and prac-
tically infinite divergence of the Human from the Simian Stirps.

104

But in enunciating this important truth I must guard
myself against a form of misunderstanding, which is very pre-
valent. I find, in fact, that those who endeavour to teach
what nature so clearly shows us in this matter, are liable to
have their opinions misrepresented and their phraseology
garbled, until they seem to say that the structural differences
between man and even the highest apes are small and insig-
nificant. Let me take this opportunity then of distinctly
asserting, on the contrary, that they are great and significant ;
that. every bone of a Gorilla bears marks by which it might
be distinguished from the corresponding bone of a Man; and
that, in the present:creation, at any rate, no intermediate
link bridges over the gap between Home and Troglodytes.

It would be no less wrong than absurd to deny the exist-
ence of this chasm; but it is at least equally wrong and
absurd to exaggerate its magnitude, and, resting on the ad-
mitted fact of its existence, to refuse to inquire whether it is
wide or narrow. Remember, if you will, that there is no
existing link between Man and the Gorilla, but do not forget

, | that there isa no less sharp line of demarcation, a no less

_ | complete absence of any transitional form, between the Gorilla
and the Orang, or the Orang and the Gibbon. I say, not less
| sharp, though it is somewhat narrower. The structural dif-
| ferences between Man and the Man-like apes certainly justify

\ our regarding him as constituting a family apart from them ;

| though, inasmuch as he differs less from them than they do
from other families of the same order, there can be no justi-
fication for placing him in a distinct order.

And thus the sagacious foresight of the great lawgiver of
systematic zoology, Linnzeus, becomes justified, and a cen-
tury of anatomical research brings us back to his conclusion,

that man is a member of the same order (for which the Lin-
nean term Primates ought to be retained) as the Apes and
Lemurs. ‘This order is now divisible into seven families, of
about equal systematic value: the first, the AnTuroptnt,
contains Man alone; the second, the CATARHINI, embraces,

ee

105

the old world apes ; the third, the Puatyruini, all new world
apes, except the Marmosets; the fourth, the ARCTOPITHECINI,
contains the Marmosets; the fifth, the Lemurini1, the Lemurs
—from which Cheiromys should probably be excluded to
form a sixth distinct family, the Cuntromyini1; while the
seventh, the GaLzoriTHECINI, contains only the flymg Lemur
Galeopithecus,—a strange form which almost touches on the
Bats, as the Cheiromys puts on a Rodent clothing, and the
Lemurs simulate Insectivora.

Perhaps no order of mammals presents us with so extra-
ordinary a series of gradations as this—leading us insensibly
from the crown and summit of the animal creation down to
creatures, from which there is but a step, as it seems, to the
lowest, smallest, and least intelligent of the placental Mam-
malia, It is as if nature herself had foreseen the arrogance
of man, and with Roman severity had provided that his
intellect, by its very triumphs, should call into prominence
the slaves, admonishing the conqueror that he is but dust.

These are the chief facts, this the immediate conclusion
from them to which I adverted in the commencement of this
Essay. The facts, I believe, cannot be disputed ; and if so,
the conclusion appears to me to be inevitable. ©

But if Man be separated by no greater structural barrier
from the brutes than they are from one another—then it
seems to follow that if any process of physical causation can
be discovered by which the genera and families of ordinary
animals have been produced, that process of causation is
amply sufficient to account for the origin of Man. In other
words, if it could be shown that the Marmosets, for example,
have arisen by gradual modification of the ordinary Pla-
tyrhini, or that both Marmosets and Platyrhini are modified
ramifications of a primitive stock—then, there would be no
rational ground for doubting that man might have originated,
in the one case, by the gradual modification of a man-like

106

ape; or, in the other case, as a ramification of the same
primitive stock as those apes.

At the present moment, but one such process of physical
causation has any evidence in its favour; or, in other words,
there is but one hypothesis regarding the origin of species of
animals in general which has any scientific existence--that
propounded by Mr. Darwin. For Lamarck, sagacious as
many of his views were, mingled them with so much that
was crude and even absurd, as to neutralize the benefit which
his originality might have effected, had he been a more sober
and cautious thinker; and though I have heard of the
announcement of a formula touching “the ordained con-
tinuous becoming of organic forms,” it is obvious that it is
the first duty of a hypothesis to be intelligible, and that a
qua-qua-versal proposition of this kind, which may be read
backwards, or forwards, or sideways, with exactly the same
amount of signification, does not really exist, though it may
seem to do'so.

At the present moment, therefore, the question of the
relation of man to the lower animals resolves itself, in the
end, into the larger question of the tenability or untenability
of Mr. Darwin’s views. But here we enter upon difficult
ground, and it behoves us to define our exact position with
the greatest care.

It cannot be doubted, I think, that Mr. Darwin has satis-
factorily proved that what he terms selection, or selective |
modification, must occur, and does occur, in nature; and he
has also proved to superfluity that such selection is com-

petent to produce forms as distinct, structurally, as some
genera even are. If the animated world presented us with
none but structural differences, I should have no hesitation
in saying that Mr. Darwin had demonstrated the existence
of a true physical cause, amply competent to account for the
origin of living species, and of man among the rest.

But, in addition to their structural distinctions, the species

107

of animals and plants, or at least a great number of them,
exhibit physiological characters—what are known as distinct
species, structurally, being for the most part either altogether
incompetent to breed one with another; or if they breed,
the resulting mule, or hybrid, is unable to perpetuate its race
with another hybrid of the same kind.

A true physical cause is, however, admitted to be such
only on one condition—that it shall account for all the
quem which come within the range of its operation.
If it is inconsistent with any one phenomenon, it must be
rejected; if it fails to explain any one phenomenon, it is so
far weak, so far to be suspected; though it may mave a per-
fect right to claim provisional acceptance.

Now, Mr. Darwin’s hypothesis is not, so far as I am aware,
inconsistent with any known biological fact; on the con-
trary, if admitted, the facts of Development, of Comparative
Anatomy, of Geographical Distribution, and of Paleontology,
become connected together, and exhibit a meaning such as
they never possessed before ; and I, for one, am fully con-
vinced, that if not precisely true, that hypothesis is as near
an approximation to the truth as, for example, the Coperni-
can hypothesis was to the true iia: of the planetary
motions.

But, for all this, our acceptance of the Darwinian hypo-
thesis must be provisional so long as one link in the chain of
evidence is wanting; and so long as all the animals and plants
certainly produced by selective breeding from a common stock
are fertile, and their progeny are fertile with one another,
that link will be wanting. For, so long, selective breeding will
not be proved to be competent to do all that is required of
it to produce natural species.

J have put this conclusion as strongly as possible before
the reader, because the last position in which I wish to find
myself is that of an advocate for Mr. Darwin’s, or any other
views—if by an advocate is meant one whose business it is

seer tt irre Par?

108

to smooth over real difficulties, and to persuade where he
cannot convince.

In justice to Mr. Darwin, however, it must be admitted
that the conditions of fertility and sterility are very ill under-
stood, and that every day’s advance in knowledge leads us to
regard the hiatus in his evidence as of less and less impor-
tance, when set against the multitude of facts which harmonize
with, or receive an explanation from, his doctrines.

IT adopt Mr. Darwin’s hypothesis, therefore, subject to the
production of proof that physiological species may be
produced by selective breeding ; just as a physical philosopher
may accept the undulatory theory of light, subject to the
proof of the existence of the hypothetical ether; or as the
chemist adopts the atomic theory, subject to the proof of the
existence of atoms ; and for exactly the same reasons, namely,
that it has an immense amount of prima facie probability :
that it is the only means at present within reach of reducing
the chaos of observed facts to order; and lastly, that it is
the most powerful instrument of investigation which has
been presented to naturalists since the invention of the
natural system of classification, and the commencement of
the systematic study of embryology.

But even leaving Mr. Darwin’s views aside, the whole

analogy of natural operations furnishes so complete and crush-

ing an argument against the intervention of any but what are
termed secondary causes, in the production of all the pheno-
mena of the universe ; that, in view of the intimate relations
between Man and the rest of the living world; and between
the forces exerted by the latter and all other forces, I can gee
no excuse for doubting that all are co-ordinated terms of
Nature’s great progression, from the formless to the formed—
from the inorganic to the organic—from blind force to con- |
scious intellect and will.

/

Science has fulfilled her function when she has ascertained

109.

and enunciated’ truth; and were these pages addressed to
men of science only, I should now close this essay, knowing
that my colleagues have learned to respect nothing but
evidence, and to believe that their highest duty lies in sub-
mitting to it, however it may jar against their inclinations.

But desiring, as I do, to reach the wider circle of the
intelligent public, it would be unworthy cowardice were I to
ignore the repugnance with which the majority of my
readers are likely to meet the conclusions to which the most
careful and conscientious study I have been able to give to
this matter, has led me.

On all sides I shall hear the cry—“ We are men and
women, not a mere better sort of apes, a little longer in the
leg, more compact in the foot, and bigger in brain than your
brutal Chimpanzees and Gorillas. The power of knowledge
—the conscience of good and evil—the pitiful tenderness of
human affections, raise us out of all real fellowship with the
brutes, however closely they may seem to approximate us.”

To this I can only reply that the exclamation would be
most just and would have my own entire sympathy, if it were
only relevant. But, it is not I who seek to base Man’s
dignity upon his great toe, or insinuate that we are lost if an
Ape has a hippocampus minor. On the contrary, I have
done my best to sweep away this vanity. I have endea-
voured to show that no absolute structural line of demar-
cation, wider than that between the animals which imme-
diately succeed us in the scale, can be drawn between the
animal world and ourselves; and I may add the expression
of my belief that the attempt to draw a psychical distinction
is equally futile, and that even the highest faculties of feeling
and of intellect begin to germinate in lower forms of life.*

* Tt is so rare a pleasure for me to find Professor Owen’s opinions in entire
accordance with my own, that I cannot forbear from quoting a paragraph which
appeared in his Essay “On the Characters, &c. of the Class Mammalia,” in the
‘ Journal of the Proceedings of the Linnean Society of London’ for 1857, but is

io
saat iaaied ieee nel ama eee eminatoe

7 ¢

f
*

110

At the same time, no one is more strongly convinced than
I am of the vastness of the gulf between civilized man and
the brutes; or is more certain that whether from them or not,
he is assuredly not of them. No oneis less disposed to think
lightly of the present dignity, or despairingly of the future
hopes, of the only consciously intelligent denizen of this world.

We are indeed told by those who assume authority in
these matters, that the two sets of opinions are incompatible,
and that the belief in the unity of origin of man and brutes
involves the brutalization and degradation of the former.
But is this really so? Could not a sensible child confute,
by obvious arguments, the shallow rhetoricians who would
force this conclusion upon us? Is it, indeed, true, that the
Poet, or the Philosopher, or the Artist whose genius is the
glory of his age, is degraded from his high estate by the
undoubted historical probability, not to say certainty, that he
is the direct descendant of some naked and bestial savage,
whose intelligence was just sufficient to make him a little more
cunning than the Fox, and by so much more dangerous than
the Tiger? Oris he bound to howl and grovel on all fours
because of the wholly unquestionable fact, that he was once

an egg, which no ordinary power of discrimination could
distinguish from that of a Dog? Or is the philanthropist or
the saint to give up his endeavours to lead a noble life, because

unaccountably omitted in the “ Reade Lecture” delivered before the University
of Cambridge two years later, which is otherwise nearly a reprint of the paper
in question. Prof. Owen writes :

“Not being able to appreciate or conceive of the distinction between the
psychical phenomena of a Chimpanzee and of a Boschisman or of an Aztec, with
arrested brain growth, as being of a nature so essential as to preclude a com-
parison between them, or as being other than a difference of degree, I cannot
shut my eyes to the significance of that ‘all-pervading similitude of structure—
every tooth, every bone, strictly homologous—which makes the determination
of the difference between Homo and Pithecus the anatomist’s difficulty.”

Surely it is a little singular, that the ‘anatomist,’ who finds it ‘difficult’ to
‘determine the difference’ between Homo and Pithecus, should yet range them
on anatomical grounds, in distinct sub-classes !

'

ite to i GAO, GPR ODA SE as Sa

Lil

the simplest study of man’s nature reveals, at its foundations,
all the selfish passions and fierce appetites of the merest
quadruped? Is mother-love vile because a hen shows it, or
fidelity base because dogs possess it ?

The common sense of the mass of mankind will answer
these questions without a moment’s hesitation. Healthy
humanity, finding itself hard pressed to escape from real sin
and degradation, will leave the brooding over speculative
pollution to the cynics and the ‘ righteous overmuch’ who,
disagreeing in everything else, unite in blind insensibility
to the nobleness of the visible world, and in inability to appre~
ciate the grandeur of the place Man occupies therein.

Nay more, thoughtful men, once escaped from the blind-
ing influences of traditional prejudice, will find in the lowly
stock whence man has sprung, the best evidence of the 7
splendour of his capacities; and will discern in his long pro-
gress through the Past, a reasonable ground of faith in his
attainment of a nobler Future.

They will remember that in comparing civilized man with
the animal world, one is as the Alpine traveller, who sees the
mountains soaring into the sky and can hardly discern where
the deep shadowed crags and roseate peaks end, and where
the clouds of heaven begin. Surely the awe-struck voyager
may be excused if, at first, he refuses to believe the geologist,
who tells him that these glorious masses are, after all, the
hardened mud of primeval seas, or the cooled slag of sub-
terranean furnaces— of one substance with the dullest clay, but
raised by inward forces to that place of proud and seemingly
inaccessible glory.

But the geologist is right; and due reflection on his teach-
ings, instead of diminishing our reverence and our wonder,
adds all the force of intellectual sublimity, to the mere
eesthetic intuition of the uninstructed beholder.

And after passion and prejudice have died away, the same
result will attend the teachings of the naturalist respecting

112

that great Alps and Andes of the living world—-Man. Our
reverence for the nobility of manhood will not be lessened
by the knowledge, that Man is, in substance and in structure,
one with the brutes; for, he alone possesses the marvellous
endowment of intelligible and rational speech, whereby, in
the secular period of his existence, he has slowly accumulated
and organized the experience which is almost wholly lost with

the cessation of every individual life in other animals; so that
now he stands raised upon it as on a mountain top, far above
the level of his humble fellows, and transfigured from his
grosser nature by reflecting, here and there, a ray from the
infinite source of truth.

113 ;

A succinct History of the Controversy respecting the Cerebral
Structure of Man and the Apes.

Up to the year 1857 all anatomists of authority, who had occupied themselves
with the cerebral structure of the Apes—Cuvier, Tiedemann, Sandifort, Vrolik,
Isidore G. St. Hilaire, Schroeder van der Kolk, Gratiolet-—were agreed that the
brain of the Apes possesses a POSTERIOR LOBE.

Tiedemann, in 1825, figured and acknowledged in the text of his ‘Tcones,’
the existence of the PosTERIoR coRNv of the lateral ventricle in the Apes, not
only under the title of Scrobiculus parvus loco cornu posterioris’—a fact which
has beén paraded—but as ‘cornu posterius’ (Icones, p. 54), a circumstance
which has been, as sedulously, kept in the back ground.

Cuvier (Lecons, T. iii, Pp. 103) says, “ the anterior or lateral ventricles possess
a digital cavity [posterior cornu] only in Man and the Apes...... lis
presence depends on that of the posterior lobes.”

Schroeder van der Kolk and Vrolik, and Gratiolet, had also figured and

described the posterior cornu in various Apes. As to the Hiprocameus MINOR
| ‘Tiedemann had erroneously asserted its absence in the Apes; but Schroeder van
der Kolk and Vrolik had pointed out the existence of what they considered
a rudimentary one in the Chimpanzee, and Gratiolet had expressly affirmed its
existence in these animals, Such was the state of our information on these
subjects in the year 1856.

In the year 1857, however, Professor Owen, either in ignorance of these well-
known facts or else unjustifiably suppressing them, submitted to the Linnean
Society a paper “ On the Characters, Principles of Division, and Primary Groups
of the Class Mammalia,” which was printed in the Society’s Journal, and contains
the following passage :—In Man, the brain presents an ascensive step in de-
velopment, higher and more strongly marked than that by which the preceding
sub-class was distinguished from the one below it, Not only do the cerebral
hemispheres overlap | the olfactory lobes and cerebellum, but they extend in
advance of the oneand further back than the other, The posterior development
is so marked, that anatomists have assigned to that part the character of a third

lobe ; it is peculiar to the genus Homo, and equally peculiar is the posterior horn

I

My
a
Li

;
a
iit
|

F

g
3
:
A
7

“

114

of the lateral ventricle and the ‘hippocampus minor’ which characterise the hind
lobe of cach hemisphere.’ —Journal of the Proceedings of the Linnean Society,
Vol. ii, p. 19-

As the essay in which this passage stands had no less ambitious an aim than
the remodelling of the classification of the Mammalia, its author might be sup-
posed to have written under a sense of peculiar responsibility, and to have tested,
with especial care, the statements he ventured to promulgate. And even if this
be expecting too much, hastiness, or want of opportunity for due deliberation,
cannot now be pleaded in extenuation of any shortcomings ; for the propositions
cited were repeated two years afterwards in the Reade Lecture, delivered before
so grave a body as the University of Cambridge, in 1859.

When the assertions, which I have italicised in the above extract, first came
under my notice, I was not a little astonished at so flat a contradiction of the
doctrines current among well-informed anatomists ; but, not unnaturally imagin-
ing that the deliberate statements of a responsible person must have some
foundation in fact, I deemed it my duty to investigate the subject anew before
the time at which it would be my business to lecture thereupon came round. The
result of my inquiries was to prove that Mr. Owen’s three assertions, that ‘ the
third lobe, the posterior horn of the lateral ventricle, and the hippocampus
minor,” are “peculiar to the genus Homo,” are contrary to the plainest facts.
I communicated this conclusion to the students of my class; and then, having
no desire to embark in a controversy which could not redound to the honour of
British science, whatever its issue, I turned to more congenial occupations.

The time speedily arrived, however, when a persistence in this reticence would
have involved me in an unworthy paltering with truth.

At the meeting of the British Association at Oxford, in 1860, Professor Owen
repeated these detiritons in my presence, and, of course, I immediately gave
them a direct and unqualified contradiction, pledging myself to justify that
unusual procedure elsewhere. I redeemed that pledge by publishing, in the
January number of the Natural Histury Review for 1861, an article wherein
the truth of the three following propositions was fully demonstrated (7. ¢. p. 71) :—

“1, That the third lobe is neither peculiar to, nor characteristic of, man
seeing that it exists in all the higher quadrumana.”

“9, That the posterior cornu of the lateral ventricle is neither peculiar to,

115

nor characteristic of, man, inasmuch as it also exists in the higher quadru-
mana.

«3. That the hippocampus minor is neither peculiar to, nor characteristic of;
man, as it is found in certain of the higher quadrumana.”

Furthermore, this paper contains the following paragraph (p. 76):

“And lastly, Schroeder van der Kolk and Vrolik (op. cit. p. 271), though
they particularly note that ‘the lateral ventricle is distinguished from that of
Man by the very defective proportions of the posterior cornu, wherein only a
stripe is visible as an indication of the hippocampus minor;’ yet the Figure 4, in
their second Plate, shows that this posterior cornu is a perfectly distinct and
unmistakeable structure, quite as large as it often isin Man. It is the more
remarkable that Professor Owen should have overlooked the explicit statement
and figure of these authors, as it is quite obvious, on comparison of the figures,
that his woodcut of the brain of a Chimpanzee (1. ec. p- 19) is a reduced copy of
the second figure of Messrs. Schroeder van der Kolk and Vrolik’s first Plate.

“As M. Gratiolet (1. ec. p. 18), ne is careful to remark, ‘ unfortunately
the brain which they have taken as a model was greatly altered (profondément
affaissé), whence the general form of the brain is given in these plates in a
‘manner which is altogether incorrect.’ Indeed, it is perfectly obvious, from a
comparison of a section of the skull of the Chimpanzee with these figures, that
such is the case; and it is greatly to be regretted that so inadequate a figure
should have been taken as a typical representation of the Chimpanzee’s brain,”

From this time forth, the untenability of his position might have been as
apparent to Professor Owen as it was to every one else ; but, so far from retract-
ing the grave errors into which he had fallen, Professor Owen has persisted in and
reiterated them ; first, in a lecture delivered before the Royal Institution on the
19th of March, 1861, which is admitted to have been accurately reproduced in
the Atheneum’ for the 23rd of the same month, in tiie addressed by
Professor Owen to that journal on the 30th of March. ‘The ‘Atheneum’
report was accompanied by a diagram purporting to represent a Gorilla’s brain,
but in reality so extraordinary a misrepresentation, that Professor Owen sub-
stantially, though not explicitly, withdraws it in the letter in question. In

amending this error, however, Professor Owen fell into another of much graver

import, as his communication concludes with the following paragraph : © For

|

NN “sie ~

ne

i

1
|
1
i
rh

116

the true proportion in which the cerebrum coyers the cerebellum in the
highest Apes, reference should be made to the figure of the undissected brain
of the Chimpanzee in my ‘Reade’s Lecture on the Classification, &c. of the
Mammalia,’ p. 25, fig. 7, 8vo. 1859.”

It would not be credible, if it were not unfortunately true, that this figure, to

which the trusting public is referred, without a word of qualification, “ for the

‘true proportion in which the cerebrum covers the cerebellum in the highest

Apes,” is exactly that unacknowledged copy of Schroeder van der Kolk and
Vrolik’s figure whose utter inaccuracy had been pointed out years before by
Gratiolet, and had been brought to Professor Owen’s knowledge by myself in
the passage of my article in the ‘ Natural History Review’ above quoted.

I drew public attention to this circumstance again in my reply to Professor
Owen, published in the ‘Atheneum’ for April 13th, 1861; but the exploded
figure was reproduced once more by Professor Owen, without the slightest allu-
sion to its inaccuracy, in the ‘ Annals of Natural History’ for June 1861!

This proved too much for the patience of the original authors of the figure,
Messrs. Schroeder van der Kolk and Vvrolik, who, in a note addressed to the
Academy of Amsterdam, of which they were members, declared themselves
to be, though decided opponents of all forms of the doctrine of progressive
development, above all things, lovers of truth: and that, therefore, at whatever
risk of seeming to lend support to views which they disliked, they felt it their
duty to take the first opportunity of publicly repudiating Professor Owen’s mis-
use of their authority.

In this note they frankly admitted the justice of the criticisms of M. Gratiolet,
quoted above, and they illustrated, by new and careful figures, the posterior lobe,
the posterior cornu, and the hippocampus minor of the Orang. Furthermore,
having demonstrated the parts, at one of the sittings of the Academy, they
add, “la présence des parties contestées y a été universellement reconnue par
les anatomistes présents & la séance. Le seul doute qui soit resté se rapporte
au pes Hippocampi minor. .... A Vétat frais lindice du petit pied d’Hippo-
campe était plus prononcé que maintenant.”

Professor Owen repeated his erroneous assertions at the meeting of the British
Association in 1861, and again, without any obvious necessity, and without

adducing a single new fact or new argument, or being able in any way to meet

117

the crushing evidence from original dissections of numerous Apes’ brains, which
had in the meanwhile been brought forward by Prof. Rolleston,* F.R.S.,
Mr. Marshall,t F.R.S., Mr. Flower,{ Mr. Turner and myself,|| revived the
subject at the Cambridge meeting of the same body in 1862. Not content with
the tolerably vigorous repudiation which these unprecedented proceedings met
with in Section D, Professor Owen sanctioned the publication of a version of his
own statements, accompanied by a strange misrepresentation of mine (as may
be seen by comparison of the ¢ Times’ Report of the discussion), in the ‘Medical
Times’ for October 11th, 1862. I subjoin the conclusion of my reply in the
same journal for October 25th. :

“If this were a question of opinion, or a question of interpretation of parts or
of terms,—were it even a question of observation in which the testimony of my
own senses alone was pitted against that of another person, I should adopt a
very different tone in discussing this matter. I should, in all humility, admit
the likelihood of having myself erred in judgment, failed in knowledge, or been
blinded by prejudice.

“But no one pretends now, that the controversy is one of terms or of opinions.
Novel and devoid of authority as some of Professor Owen’s proposed. definitions

May have been, they might be accepted without changing the great features of
the case. Hence, though special investigations into these matters have been
undertaken during the last two years by Dr. Allen Thomson, by Dr. Rolleston,
by Mr. Marshall, and by Mr. Flower, all, as you are aware, anatomists of repute
in this country, and by Professors Schroeder Van der Kolk, and Vrolik (whom
Professor Owen incautiously tried to press into his own service) on the Conti-
nent, all these able and conscientious observers have with one accord testified to

the accuracy of my statements, and to the utter baselessness of the assertions of

* On the Affinities of the Brain of the Orang. Nat. Hist. Review, April,
1861. :

J On the Brain of a young Chimpanzee. Ibid. J uly, 1861.

t On the Posterior lobes of the Cerebrum of the Quadrumana. Philoso-
phical Transactions, 1862.

- § Onthe anatomical Relations of the Surfaces of the Tentorium to the Cere-
brum and Cerebellum in Man and the lower Mammals. Proceedings of the Royal
Society of Edinburgh, March, 1862. ae

| On the Brain of Ateles. Proceedings of Zoological Society, 1861.

;
|
i
:
is
+
oa
Hy

i

}
ih
iit
1

i
1

SSeS

118

Professor Owen. Even the venerable Rudolph Wagner, whom no man will
accuse of progressionist proclivities, has raised his voice on the same side; while
not a single anatomist, great or small, has supported Professor Owen.

«“ Now, Ido not mean to suggest that scientific differences should be settled
by universal suffrage, but I do conceive that solid proofs must be met by some-
thing more than empty and unsupported assertions. - Yet during the two years
through which this preposterons controversy has dragged its weary length,
Professor Owen has not ventured to bring forward a single preparation in sup-
port of his often-repeated assertions.

“The case stands thus, therefore :—Not only are the statements made by me

in consonance with the doctrines of the best older authorities, and with those of

all recent investigators, but I am quite ready to demonstrate them on the first

monkey that comes to hand ; while Professor Owen’s assertions are not only in
diametrical opposition to both old and new authorities, but he has not produced,
and, I will add, cannot produce, a single preparation which justifies them.”

I now leave this subject, for the present—For the credit of my calling I
should be glad to be, hereafter, for ever silent upon it. But, unfortunately, this
is a matter upon which, after all that has occurred, no mistake or confusion of
terms is possible—and in affirming that the posterior lobe, the posterior cornu,
and the hippocampus minor exist in certain Apes, I am stating either that which
is true; or that which I must know to be false. The question has thus become
one of personal veracity. For myself, I will accept no other issue than this,

grave as it is, to the present controversy.

III.—ON SOME FOSSIL REMAINS OF MAN.

Ee

I wave endeavoured to show, in the preceding Essay, that
the Anruropini, or Man Family, form a very well defined
group of the Primates, between which and the immediately
following Family, the Cararutnt, there is, in the existing
world, the same entire absence of any transitional form or
- connecting link, as between the Cararurni and PLatyRuint.

It is a commonly received doctrine, however, that the
structural intervals between the various existing modifica-
tions of organic beings may be diminished, or even obliter-
ated, if we take into account the long and varied succession of
animals and plants which have preceded these now living and

which are known to us only by their fossilized remains. How
far this doctrine is well based, how far, on the other hand,
as our knowledge at present stands, it is an overstatement of
the real facts of the case, and an exaggeration of the con-
clusions fairly deducible from them, are points of grave im-
portance, but into the discussion of which I do not, at present,
propose to enter. It is enough that such a view of the relae
tions of extinct to living beings has been propounded, to lead
us to inquire, with anxiety, how far the recent discoveries of
human remains in a fossil state bear out, or oppose, that view.

I shall confine myself, in discussing this question, to those
fragmentary Human skulls from the caves of Engis in the
valley of the Meuse, in Belgium, and of the Neanderthal
near Dusseldorf, the geological relations of which have been
examined with so much care by Sir Charles Lyell; upon
whose high authority I shall take it for granted, that the
Engis skull belonged to a contemporary of the Mammoth
(Elephas primigenius) and of the woolly Rhinoceros (Rhino-

120

cerus tichorhinus), with the bones of which it was found asso-
ciated; and that the Neanderthal skull is of great, though
uncertain, antiquity. Whatever be the geological age of the
latter skull, I conceive it is quite safe (on the ordinary princi-
ples of paleontological reasoning) to assume that the former
takes us to, at least, the further side of the vague biological
limit, which separates the present geological epoch from that
which immediately preceded it. And’ there can be no
doubt that the physical geography of Europe has changed
wonderfully, since the bones of Men and Mammoths, Hyzenas
and Rhinoceroses were washed pell-mell into the cave of
Engis.

fi
i
la)
|
1

Fig. 23.—The skull from the cave of Engis—viewed from the right side. One
half the size of nature. @ glabella, b occipital protuberance, (@ to d
glabello-occipital line), ¢ auditory foramen.

The skull from the cave of Engis was originally disco-
vered by Professor Schmerling, and was described by him,

121

together with other human remains disinterred at the same
time, in his valuable work, “Recherches sur les ossemens
fossiles découverts dans les cavernes de la Province de
Liege,” published in 1833, (p. 59, et seg.) from which the
following paragraphs are extracted, the precise expressions
of the author being, as far as possible, preserved.

“In the first place, I must remark that these human
remains, which are in my possession, are characterized, like
the thousands of bones which I have lately been disinterr-
ing, by the extent of the decomposition which they have under-
gone, which is precisely the same as that of the extinct
species: all, with a few exceptions, are broken 3 some few are
rounded, as is frequently found to be the case in fossil re-
mains of other species. The fractures are vertical or ob-
lique; none of them are eroded ; their colour does not differ
from that of other fossil bones, and varies from whitish
yellow to blackish. All are lighter than recent bones, with
the exception of those which have a calcareous incrustation,
_ and the cavities of which are filled with such matter.

The cranium which I have caused to be figured, Plate I,
figs. 1, 2, is that of an old person. The sutures are begin-
ning to be effaced : all the facial bones are wanting, and of
the temporal bones only a fragment of that of the right
side is preserved.

The face and the base of the cranium had been detached
before the skull was deposited in the cave, for we were
unable to find those parts, though the whole cavern was
regularly searched. The cranitim was met with at a depth
of a metre and a half [five feet nearly] hidden under an
osseous breccia, composed of the remains of small animals,
and containing one rhinoceros tusk, with several teeth of
horses and of ruminants. This breccia, which has been
spoken of above, (p. 31) was a metre [3+ feet about] wide,
and rose to the height of a metre and a half above the floor
of the cavern, to the walls of which it adhered strongly.

The earth which contained this human skull exhibited no |

122

trace of disturbance : teeth of rhinoceros, horse, hyzna, and
bear, surrounded it on all sides.

The famous Blumenbach* has directed attention to the
differences presented by the form and the dimensions of
human crania of different races. This important work
would have assisted us greatly, if the face, a part essential
for the determination of race, with more or less accuracy,
had not been wanting in our fossil cranium.

We are convinced that even if the skull had been com-
plete, it would not have been possible to pronounce, with
certainty, upon a single specimen; for individual variations
are so numerous in the crania of one and the same race, that
one cannot, without laying oneself open to large chances of
error, draw any inference from a single fragment of a cra-
nium to the general form of the head to which it belonged.

Nevertheless, in order to neglect no point respecting the
form of this fossil skull, we may observe that, from the first,
the elongated and narrow form of the forehead attracted our
attention.

In fact, the slight elevation of the frontal, its narrowness,
and the form of the orbit, approximate it more nearly to
the cranium of an Ethiopian than to that of an European:
the elongated form and the produced occiput are also cha-
racters which we believe to be observable in our fossil cra-
nium; but to remove all doubt upon that subject I have
caused the contours of the cranium of an European and of
an Ethiopian to be drawn and the foreheads represented.
Plate II, figs. 1 & 2, and, in the same plate, figs. 3 & 4,
will render the differences easily distinguishable; and a
single glance at the figures, will be more instructive than a
long and wearisome description. |

At whatever conclusion we may arrive as to the origin of
the man from whence this fossil skull proceeded, we may ex-
press an opinion without exposing ourselves to a fruitless

* Decas Collectionis sux craniorum diversarum gentium illustrata. Gottinga,
1790—1820.

123

controversy. Hach may adopt the hypothesis which seems'to -

him most probable: for my own part, I hold it to be demon-
‘strated that this cranium has belonged to a person of limited
intellectual faculties, and we conclude thence that it be-
longed to a man of a low degree of civilization: a deduction
which is borne out by contrasting the capacity of the frontal
with that of the occipital region.

Another cranium of a young individual was discovered in
the floor of the cavern beside the tooth of an elephant; the
skull was entire when found, but the moment it was lifted
it fell into pieces, which I have not, as yet, been able to put
together again. But I have represented the bones of the
upper jaw, Plate I, fig. 5. The state of the alveoli and the
teeth, shows that the molars had not yet pierced the gum.
Detached milk molars and some fragments of a human skull,
proceed from this same place. The figure 3, represents a
human superior incisor tooth, the size of which is truly
remarkable.* ~ its

Figure 4 is a fragment of a superior maxillary bone, the
molar teeth of which are worn down to the roots.

I possess two vertebree, a first and last dorsal.

A clavicle of the left side (see Plate ITT, fig. 1); although
it belonged to a young individual, this bone shows that he
must have been of great stature.+

Two fragments of the radius, badly preserved, do not in-
dicate that the height of the man, to whom they belonged,
- exceeded five feet and a half.

As to the remains of the upper extremities, those which
are in my possession, consist merely of a fragment of an
ulna and of a radius (Plate III, fig. 5 and 6).

Figure 2, Plate IV., represents a metacarpal bone, con- —

* Ina subsequent passage, Schmerling remarks upon the occurrence of an
incisor tooth ‘ of enormous size’ from the caverns of Engihoul. The tooth
figured is somewhat long, but its dimensions do not appear to me to be other-
wise remarkable.

} The figure of this clavicle meqsures 5 inches from end to end in
line—so that the bone is rather a small than a large one.

a straight

124

tained in the breccia, of which we have spoken ; it was found
in the lower part above the cranium: add to this some
metacarpal bones, found at very different distances, half-a-
dozen metatarsals, three phalanges of the hand, and one of
the foot.

This is a brief enumeration of the remains of human bones
collected in the cavern of Engis, which has preserved for us
the remains of three individuals, surrounded by those of the
Elephant, of the Rhinoceros, and of Carnivora of species
unknown in the present creation.”

From the cave of Engihoul, opposite that of Engis, on
the right bank of the Meuse, Schmerling obtained the re-
mains of three other individuals of Man, among which were
only two fragments of parietal bones, but many bones of
the extremities. In one case, a broken fragment of an ulna
was soldered to a like fragment of a radius by stalagmite,
a condition frequently observed ameng the bones of the Cave
Bear (Ursus speleus), found in the Belgian caverns.

It was in the cavern of Engis that Professor Schmerling
found, incrusted with stalagmite and joined to a stone, the
pointed bone implement, which he has figured in fig. 7 of
his Plate XXXVI, and worked flints were found by him
in all those Belgian caves, which contained an abundance
of fossil bones.

A short letter from M. Geoffroy St. Hilaire, published in
the Comptes Rendus of the Academy of Sciences of Paris,
for July 2nd, 1838, speaks of a visit (and apparently a very
hasty one) paid to the collection of Professor ‘ Schermid?’
(which is presumably a misprint for Schmerling) at Liége.
The writer briefly criticises the drawings which illustrate
Schmerling’s. work, and affirms that the “human cranium
is a little longer than it is represented” in Schmerling’s
figure. The only other remark worth quoting is this :—
«“ The aspect of the human bones differs little from that of
the cave bones, with which we are familiar, and of which

125

there is a considerable collection in the same place. With
respect to their special forms, compared with those of the
varieties of recent human crania, few certain conclusions

can be put forward; for much greater differences exist be-

tween the different specimens of well-characterized varieties,
than between the fossil cranium of Liége and that of one of
those varieties selected as a term of comparison.”

Geoffroy St. Hilaire’s remarks are, it will be observed,
little but an echo of the philosophic doubts of the describer and
discoverer of the remains. As to the critique upon Schmer-
ling’s figures, I find that the side view given by the latter
is really about ’>ths of an inch shorter than the original,
and that the ont view is diminished to about the same extent.
Otherwise the representation is not, in any way, inaccurate,
but corresponds very well with the cast which is in my posses-
sion.

A piece of the occipital bone, which Schmerling seems to
have missed, has since been fitted on to the rest of the
cranium by an accomplished anatomist, Dr. Spring of Liége,
under whose direction an excellent plaster cast was made for
Sir Charles Lyell. It is upon and froma duplicate of that
cast that my own observations and the accompanying figures,
the outlines of which are copied from very accurate Camera

lucida drawings, by my friend Mr. Busk, reduced to one-

half of the natural size, are made.

As Professor Schmerling observes, the base of the skull
is destroyed, and the facial bones are entirely absent ; but the
roof of the cranium, consisting of the frontal, parietal, and
the greater part of the occipital bones, as far as the middle
of the occipital foramen, is entire or nearly so. The left
temporal bone is wanting. Of the right temporal, the parts
in the immediate neighbourhood of the auditory foramen,
the mastoid process, and a considerable portion of the squa-
mous element of the temporal are well preserved (Fig. 23.).

The lines of fracture which remain between the coadjusted
pieces of the skull, and are faithfully displayed in Schmer-

NARA nla =e? ane SGT aint

See a ee

As
RQ
4
J
a
iS)
A
=
-_
i)
g
3
cn
ak
oO
a
8
43
3
|
iS
a}
rs
o
=
o
ort
a
=
S
ae
mM
4
ce
|
)
aa
ie
xt
N
g
fy

127

ling’s figure, are readily traceable in the cast. The sutures
are also discernible, but the complex disposition of their serra-
tions, shown in the figure, is not obvious in the cast. Though
the ridges which give attachment to muscles are not exces-
sively prominent, they are well marked, and taken together
with the apparently well developed frontal sinuses, and the
condition of the sutures, leave no doubt on my mind that the
skull is that of an adult, if not middle-aged man.

The extreme length of the skull is 7.7 inches. Its ex.
treme breadth, which corresponds very nearly with the in-
terval between the parietal protuberances, is not more than
5.4 inches. The proportion of the length to the breadth is
therefore very nearly as 100 to 70. Ifa line be drawn from
the point at which the brow curves in towards the root of the
nose, and which is called the ¢ glabella’ (a), (fig. 23), to the
occipital protuberance (5), and the distance to the highest
point of the arch of the skull be measured perpendicularly
from this line, it will be found to be 4.75 inches. Viewed

from above, fig. 24 A, the forehead presents an evenly

rounded curve, and passes into the contour of the sides
and back of the skull, which describes a tolerably regular
elliptical curve. .

The front view (fig. 24 B) shows that the roof of the skull
was very regularly aud elegantly arched in the transverse
direction, and that the transverse diameter was a little less
below the parietal protuberances, than above them. The
forehead cannot be called narrow in relation to the rest of
the skull, nor can it be called a retreating forehead; on the
contrary, the antero-posterior contour of the skull] is well
arched, so that the distance along that contour, from the
nasal depression to the occipital protuberance, measures about
13.75 inches. The transverse arc of the skull, measured
from one auditory foramen to the other, across the middle
of the sagittal suture, is about 13 inches, The sagittal
suture itself is 5.5 inches long.

The supraciliary prominences or brow-ridges (on each side

aeRO ENS raga ee Te ea RN =!

ee aaa

Soe aaa

a a a eran

128

of a fig. 23) are well, but not excessively, developed, and are
separated by a median depression. Their principal eleva-
tion is disposed so obliquely that I judge them to be due to
large frontal sinuses.

If aline joining the glabella and the occipital protube-
rance (a, 6, fig. 23) be made horizontal, no part of the occi-
Zsth of an inch behind the
posterior extremity of that line, and the upper edge of the
auditory foramen(c) is almost in contact with a line drawn

pital region projects more than

parallel with this upon the outer surface of the skull.

A transverse line drawn from one auditory foramen to the
other traverses, as usual, the forepart of the occipital fora-
men. The capacity of the interior of this fragmentary skull

has not been ascertained.

The history of the Human remains from the cavern in the
Neanderthal may best be given in the words of their original
describer, Dr. Schaaffhausen,* as translated by Mr. Busk.

“‘ Tn the early part of the year 1857, a human skeleton
was discovered in a limestone cave in the Neanderthal, near
Hochdal, between Diisseldorf and Elberfeld. Of this, how-
ever, I was unable to procure more than a plaster cast of the
—eranium, taken at Elberfeld, from which I drew up an ac-
count of its remarkable conformation, which was, in the first
instance, read on the 4th of February, 1857, at the meeting
of the Lower Rhine Medical and Natural History Society,
at Bonn.t Subsequently Dr. Fublrott, to whom science is
indebted for the preservation of these bones, which were not
at first regarded as human, and into whose possession they
afterwards came, brought the crantum from Elberfeld to
Bonn, and entrusted it to me for more accurate anatomical

* On THE CRANIA OF THE most ANCIENT Races or Man.. By Professor D.
Schaaffhausen, of Bonn. (From Miuller’s Archiy., 1858, pp. 453.) With
Remarks, and original Figures, taken from a Cast of the Neanderthal Cranium,
By George Busk, F.R.S., &c. Natural History Review, Apri, 1861.

+ Verhandl. d. Naturhist. Vereins der preuss. Rheinlande und Westphalens.,
xiv. Bonn, 1857.

129

examination. At the General Meeting of the Natural His-
tory Society of Prussian Rhineland and Westphalia, at Bonn,
on the 2nd of June, 1857,* Dr. Fuhlrott himself gave a full
account of the locality, and of the circumstances under
which the discovery was made. He was of opinion that the
bones might be regarded as fossil; and in coming to this
conclusion, he laid especial stress upon the existence of den-
dritic deposits, with which their surface was covered, and
which were first noticed upon them by Professor Mayer.
To this communication I appended a brief report on the
results of my anatomical examination of the bones. The
conclusions at which I arrived were ;—1st. That the extra-
ordinary form of the skull was due to a natural conforma-
tion hitherto not known to exist, even in the most barbarous
races. 2nd, That these remarkable human remains be-

longed to a period antecedent to the time of the Celts and

Germans, and were in all probability derived from one of
the wild races of North-western Europe, spoken of by Latin
writers ; and which were encountered as autochthones by the
German immigrants. And 3rdly. That it was beyond doubt
that these human relics were traceable to a period at which
the latest animals of the diluvium still existed; but that no
proof of this assumption, nor consequently of their so-termed
fossil condition, was afforded by the circumstances under
which the bones were discovered.

As Dr. Fuhlrott has not yet published his description of
these circumstances, I borrow the following account of them
from one of his letters. “A small cave or grotto, high

enough to admit a man, and about 15 feet deep from the ©

entrance, which is 7 or 8 feet wide, exists in the southern
wall of the gorge of the Neanderthal, as it is termed, at a
distance of about 100 feet from the Diissel, and about 60
feet above the bottom of the valley. In its earlier and un-
injured condition, this cavern opened upon a narrow plateau
lying in front of it, and from which the rocky wall descended

* Tb. Correspondenzblatt. No. 2.
K

as

SAS Sa

Siti na een

130

almost perpendicularly into the river. It could be reached,
though with difficulty, from above. The uneven floor was
covered to a thickness of 4 or 5 feet with a deposit of mud,
sparingly intermixed with rounded fragments of chert. In
the removing of this deposit, the bones were discovered.
The skull was first noticed, placed nearest to the entrance of
the cavern; and further in, the other bones, lying in the
same horizontal plane. Of this I was assured, in the most
positive terms, by two labourers who were employed to clear
out the grotto, and who were questioned by me on the spot.
At first no idea was entertained of the bones being human;
and it was not till several weeks after their discovery that
they were recognised as such by me, and placed in security.
But, as the importance of the discovery was not at the time
perceived, the labourers were very careless in the collecting,
and secured chiefly only the larger bones; and to this cir-
cumstance it may be attributed that fragments merely of the
probably perfect skeleton came into my possession.”

_©My anatomical examination of these bones afforded the
following results :—

The cranium is of unusual size, and of a long-elliptical

form. A most remarkable peculiarity is at once obvious in
the extraordinary development of the frontal sinuses, owing
to which the superciliary ridges, which coalesce completely
in the middle, are rendered so prominent, that the frontal
bone exhibits a considerable hollow or depression above, or
rather behind them, whilst a deep depression is also formed
in the situation of the root of the nose. The forehead is
narrow and low, though the middle and hinder portions of
the cranial arch are well developed. Unfortunately, the
fragment of the skull that has been preserved consists only of
the portion situated above the roof of the orbits and the
superior occipital ridges, which are greatly developed, and
almost conjoined so as to form a horizontal eminence. It
includes almost the whole of the frontal bone, both parietals,
a small part of the squamous and the upper-third of the

131

occipital. The recently fractured surfaces show that the
Skull was broken at the time of its disinterment. ‘The
cavity holds 16,876 grains of water, whence its cubical con-
tents may be estimated at 57.64 inches, or 1033124 cubic
centimetres, In making this estimation, the water is sup-
posed to stand on a level with the orbital plate of the frontal,
with the deepest notch in the Squamous margin of the
parietal, and with the superior semicircular ridges of the
occipital. Hstimated in dried millet-seed, the contents
equalled 31 ounces, Prussian Apothecaries’ weight. The
semicircular line indicating the upper boundary of the
attachment of the temporal muscle, though not very strongly
marked, ascends nevertheless to more than half the height of
the parietal bone. On the right superciliary ridge is observ-
able an oblique furrow or depression, indicative of an injury
received during life.* The coronal and sagittal sutures are
on the exterior nearly closed, and on the inside so com-
pletely ossified as to have left no traces whatever, whilst the
~lambdoidal remains quite open. The depressions for the
Pacchionian glands are deep and numerous ; and there is an
unusually deep vascular groove immediately behind: the
coronal suture, which, as it terminates in a foramen, no
doubt transmitted a vena emissaria. The course of the
frontal suture is indicated externally by a slight ridge; and
where it joms the coronal, this ridge rises into a small protu-
berance. The course of the sagittal suture is grooved, and
above the angle of the occipital bone the parietals are

depressed. ;
mm.f

The length of the skull from the
nasal process of the frontal
over the vertex to the superior
semicircular lines of the occi-
pital measures . . . . . 303 (300) =12:0”. -

* This, Mr. Busk has pointed out, is probably the notch for the frontal nerve.
{| The numbers in brackets are those which I should assign to the different
measures, as taken from the plaster cast.—G. B.

2

132

Circumference over the orbital

ridges and the superior semi-

circular lines of the occipital . 590 (590) = 23-37” or 23”
Width of the frontal from the

middle of the temporal line

on one side to the same point

on the opposite . . . . . 104 (114)= 4:1” — 4:5".
Length of the frontal from the

nasal process to the coronal

BURUS oa; 5.25 é . 133 (125), == 5°25” = 8”.
Extreme width of the frontal si-

PIG gt wa Ae eo Ce ee ee
Vertical height above a line join-

ing the deepest notches in the

squamous border of the pa-

Tetals: - ve -« 70 oe 9S 3
Width of hinder aca of een

from one parietal protuberance

to the ether 4. . 138. (150) = 5°47 — 5:9",
Distance from the upper angle

of the occipital to the superior

semicircular lines . . . . 51 (60)= 1:9” —2°4”.
Thickness of the bone at the pa-

rietal protuberance. . . 8.

at the angle of the acaipitah 9.

at the superior semicircular
line of the occipital. . . . 10 = 03%

Besides the cranium, the followimg bones have been se-

cured :—

1. Both thigh-bones, perfect. These, like the skull, and
all the other bones, are characterized by their unusual thick-
ness, and the great development of all the elevations and
depressions for the attachment of muscles. In the Anato-
mical Museum at Bonn, under the designation of “ Giant’s-
bones,” are some recent thigh-bones, with which in thick-

133

ness the foregoing pretty nearly correspond, although they
are shorter.

Giant’s bones. Fossil bones.
mm. mm.

Weneth. 55 °S-> Speopes eee
Diameter of head of femur. 54—= 2°14”... 53-—= 2:0”.
i of lower articular
end, from one condyle to
the other <2 ee er eas 87= 3:4", 4
Diameter of femur in the |
mnie OS SS EP SOS es 1

2. A perfect right humerus, whose size shows that it be-

longs to the thigh-bones. |

mm. 4

| eM es ee ee 12:3”, J
| Thickness in the middle. . . 26== 1:0”, rs i
| Diameter of head .° . 2 2° = 99% ; |

Also a perfect right radius of corresponding dimensions, 4
| _ and the upper-third of a right ulna corresponding to the /
| humerus and radius. {
| 3. A left humerus, of which the upper-third is wanting,
and which is so much slenderer than the right as apparently
to belong to a distinct individual; a left ulna, which, though — .
complete, is pathologically deformed, the coronoid process |
being so much enlarged by bony growth, that flexure of the .
elbow beyond a right angle must have been impossible ; the
anterior fossa of the humerus for the reception of the coro-
noid process being also filled up with a similar bony growth.

At the same time, the olecranon is curved strongly down- i
wards. As the bone presents no sign of rachitic degene- j
ration, it may be supposed that an injury sustained during i

life was the cause of the anchylosis. When the left ulna is
compared with the right radius, it might at first sight be |
concluded that the bones respectively belonged to different
individuals, the ulna being more than half an inch too short
for articulation with a corresponding radius. But it is clear :

134

that this shortening, as well as the attenuation of the left
humerus, are both consequent upon the pathological con-
dition above described.

4. A left ilium, almost perfect, and belonging to the femur;
a fragment of the right scapula; the anterior extremity of a
rib of the right side; and the same part of a rib of the left
side; the hinder part of a rib of the right side; and, lastly,
two hinder portions and one middle portion of ribs,-which,
from their unusually rounded shape, and abrupt curvature,
more resemble the ribs of a carnivorous animal than those
of a man. Dr. H. v. Meyer, however, to whose judgment
I defer, will not venture to declare them to be ribs of any
animal; and it only remains to suppose that this abnormal
condition has arisen from an unusually powerful development
of the thoracic muscles.

The bones adhere strongly to the tongue, although, as
proved by the use of hydrochloric acid, the greater part of
the cartilage is still retained in them, which appears, however,
to have undergone that transformation into gelatine which
has been observed by v. Bibra in fossil bones. The surface
of all the bones is in many spots covered with minute black

specks, which, more especially under a lens, are seen to be
formed of very delicate dendrites. These deposits, which were
first observed on the bones by Dr. Mayer, are most distinct
on the inner surface of the cranial bones. They consist of a

ferruginous compound, and, from their black colour, may be
supposed to contain manganese. Similar dendritic formations
also occur, not unfrequently, on laminated rocks, and are
usually found in minute fissures and cracks. _Atthe meeting
of the Lower Rhine Society at Bonn, on the Ist April, 1857,
Prof. Mayer stated that he had noticed in the museum of
Poppelsdorf. similar dendritic crystallizations on several fossil
bones of animals, and particularly on those of Ursus speleus,
but still more abundantly and beautifully displayed on the
fossil bones and teeth of Hquus adamiticus, Elephas primige-
nius, &c., from the caves of Bolve and Sundwig. Faint

135

indications of similar dendrites were visible in a Roman skull
from Siegburg ; whilst other ancient skulls, which had lain for
centuries n the earth, presented no trace of them.* I am
indebted to H. v. Meyer for the following remarks on this
subject :—

“ The incipient formation of dendritic deposits, which were
formerly regarded as a sign of a truly fossil condition, is in-
teresting. It has even been supposed that in diluvial deposits.
the presence of dendrites might be regarded as affording a
certain mark of distinction between bones mixed with the
diluvium at a somewhat later period and the true diluvial
relics, to which alone it was supposed that these deposits were
confined. But I have long been convinced that neither can
the absence of dendrites be regarded as indicative of recent
age, nor their presence as sufficient to establish the great
antiquity of the objects upon which they occur. I have my-
self noticed upon paper, which could scarcely be more than a
year old, dendritic deposits, which could not be distinguished

from those on fossil bones. Thus I possess a dog’s skull from

the Roman colony of the neighbouring Heddersheim, Castrum
Hadrianum, which is in no way distinguishable from the fossil
bones from the Frankish caves ; it presents the same colour,
and adheres to the tongue just as they do; so that this
character also, which, at a former meeting of German natu-
ralists at Bonn, gave rise to amusing scenes between Buckland
and Schmerling, is no longer of any value. In disputed cases,
therefore, the condition of the bone can scarcely afford the
means for determining with certainty whether it be fossil,
that is to say, whether it belong to geological antiquity or to
the historical period.”

As we cannot now look upon the primitive world as repre-
senting a wholly different condition of things, from which no
transition exists to the organic life of the present time, the
designation of fossil, as applied to a bone, has no longer the
sense it conveyed in the time of Cuvier. Sufficient grounds exist

* Verh. des Naturhist. Vereins in Bonn, xiv. 1857.

~ ore -

136

for the assumption that man coexisted with the animals found
in the diluvium ; and many a barbarous race may, before all
historical time, have disappeared, together with the animals
of the ancient world, whilst the races whose organization is
improved have continued the genus. The bones which form
the subject of this paper present characters which, although
not decisive as regards a geological epoch, are, nevertheless,
such as indicate a very high antiquity. It may also be re-
marked that, common as is the occurrence of diluvial animal
bones in the muddy deposits of caverns, such remains have
not hitherto been met with in the caves of the Neanderthal ;
and that the bones, which were covered by a deposit of
mud not more than four or five feet thick, and without any
protective covering of stalagmite, have retained the greatest
part of their organic substance.

These circumstances might be adduced against the proba-
bility of a geological antiquity. Nor should we be justified
in regarding the cranial conformation as perhaps representing
the most savage primitive type of the human race, since
erania exist among living savages, which, though not exhibit-
ing such a remarkable conformation of the forehead, which
gives the skull somewhat the aspect of that of the large apes,

still in other respects, as for instance in the greater depth of

the temporal fossze, the crest-like, prominent temporal ridges,
and a generally less capacious cranial cavity, exhibit an equally
low stage of development. There is no reason for supposing
that the deep frontal hollow is due to any artificial flattening,
such as is practised in various modes by barbarous nations in
the Old and New World. The skull is quite symmetrical,
and shows no indication of counter-pressure at the occiput,
whilst, according to Morton,in the Flat-heads of the Columbia,
the frontal and parietal bones are always unsymmetrical. Its
conformation exhibits the sparing development of the anterior
part of the head which has been so often observed in very
ancient crania, and affords one of the most striking proofs of
the influence of culture and civilization on the form of the
human skull.”

137

In a subsequent passage, Dr. Schaaffhausen remarks :

“There is no reason whatever for regarding the unusual
development of the frontal sinuses in the remarkable skull
from the Neanderthal as an individual or pathological de-
formity; it is unquestionably a typical race-character, and
is physiologically connected with the uncommon thickness
of the other bones of the skeleton, which exceeds by about
-one-half the usual proportions. This expansion of the frontal
sinuses, which are appendages of the air-passages, also indi-
cates an unusual force and power of endurance in the move-
ments of the body, as may be concluded from the size of all the
ridges and processes for the attachment of the muscles or
bones. That this conclusion may be drawn from the exist-
ence of large frontal sinuses, and a prominence of the lower
frontal region, is confirmed in many ways by other observa-
» tions. By the same characters, according to Pallas, the wild
horse is distinguished from the domesticated, and, according
to Cuvier, the fossil cave-bear from every recent species of bear,
whilst, according to Roulin, the pig, which has become wild
in America, and regained a resemblance to the wild boar, is

thus distinguished from the same animal in the domesticated _ |

state, as is the chamois from the goat; and, lastly, the bull-
dog, which is characterised by its large bones and strongly-

developed muscles from every other kind of dog. The esti- /
mation of the facial angle, the determination of which, |
according to Professor Owen, is also difficult in the great
apes, owing to the very prominent supra-orbital ridges, in :
the present case is rendered still more difficult from the |
absence both of the auditory opening and of the nasal spine. J
But if the proper horizontal position of the skull be taken

from the remaining portions of the orbital plates, and the
ascending line made to touch the surface of the frontal bone
behind the prominent supra-orbital ridges, the facial angle
is not found to exceed 56°.* Unfortunately, no portions:

* Estimating the facial angle in the way suggested, on the cast I should place
it at 64° to 67°.--G. B.

a

2. il .
alee pert es

ae rere

soe

a i nt tr re ee

138

of the facial bones, whose conformation is so decisive as
regards the form and expression of the head, have been
preserved. The cranial capacity, compared with the un-
common strength of the corporeal frame, would seem to
indicate a small cerebral development. The skull, as it is,
holds about 31 ounces of millet-seed; and as, from the pro-

portionate size of the wanting bones, the whole cranial cavity
should have about 6 ounces more added, the contents, were

it perfect, may be taken at 37 ounces. Tiedemann assigns,

as the cranial contents in the Negro, 40, 38, and 35 ounces.
The cranium holds rather more than 36 ounces of water
which corresponds to a capacity of 1033-24 cubic centimetres.
Huschke estimates the cranial contents of a Negress at 1127
cubic centimetres; of an old Negro at 1146 cubic centi-
metres. The capacity of the Malay skulls, estimated by
water, equalled 36, 33 ounces, whilst in the diminutive Hin-

doos it falls to as little as 27 ounces.”

After comparing the Neanderthal cranium with many
others, ancient and modern, Professor Schaaffhausen con-
cludes thus :-—

“ But the human bones and cranium from the Nean-
derthal exceed all the rest in those peculiarities of confor-
‘mation which lead to the conclusion of their belonging to
a barbarous and savage race. Whether the cavern in which

they were found, unaccompanied with any trace of himan
art, were the place of their interment, or whether, like the

bones of extinct animals elsewhere, they had been washed
into it, they may still be regarded as the most ancient
memorial of the early inhabitants of Hurope.”

‘Mr. Busk, the translator of Dr. Schaaffhausen’s paper,
has enabled us to form a very vivid conception of the de-
graded character of the Neanderthal skull, by placing side
by side with its outline, that of the skull of a Chimpanzee,
drawn to the same absolute size.

Fic. 25.—The skull from the Neanderthal cavern. A. side, B. front, and
C. top view. One half the natural size. The outlines from camera lucida
drawings, one half the natural size, by Mr. Busk : the details from the cast and
from Dr. Fuhlrott’s photographs. a glabella; b occipital protuberance; d lamb-
doidal suture.

owes

Siete ace Seca
= Se aT oe en AT ee GR ET

140

Some time after the publication of the translation of Pro-
fessor Schaaffhausen’s Memoir, I was led to study the cast
of the Neanderthal cranium with more attention than I had
previously bestowed upon it, in consequence of wishing to
supply Sir Charles Lyell with a diagram, exhibiting the
special peculiarities of this skull, as compared with other hu-
man skulls. In order to do this it was necessary to identify,
with precision, those points in the skulls compared which
corresponded anatomically. Of these points, the glabella was
obvious enough; but when I had distinguished another,
defined by the occipital protuberance and superior semi-
circular line, and had placed the outline of the Neanderthal
skull against that of the Engis skull, in such a position that
the glabella and occipital protuberance of both were inter-
sected by the same straight line, the difference was so vast
and the flattening of the Neanderthal skull so prodigious
(compare Figs. 23 and 25 A), that I at first imagined I must
have fallen into some error. And I was the more inclined
to suspect this, as, in ordinary human skulls, the occipital
protuberance and superior semicircular curved line on the
exterior of the occiput correspond pretty closely with the
‘lateral sinuses’ and the line of attachment of the tento-
rium internally. But on the tentorrum rests, as I have said
in the preceding Essay, the posterior lobe of the brain; and
hence, the occipital protuberance, and the curved line in ques-
tion, indicate, approximately, the lower limits of that lobe.
Was it possible for a human being to have the brain thus fiat-
tened and depressed ; or, on the other hand, had the mus-
cular ridges shifted their position? In order to solve these
doubts, and to decide the question whether the great supra-

ciliary projections did, or did not, arise from the develop-
ment of the frontal sinuses, I requested Sir Charles Lyell
to be so good as to obtain for me from Dr. Fuhlrott, the
possessor of the skull, answers to certain queries, and if
possible a cast, or at any rate drawings, or photographs, of
the interior of the skull.

Fra. 26.—Drawings from Dr. Fuhlrott’s photographs of parts of the interior of
the Neanderthal cranium. A. view of the under and inner surface of the frontal
region, showing the inferior apertures of the frontal sinuses (a). B. corresponding
view of the occipital region of the skull, showing the impressions of the lateral

sinuses (aa).

Dr. Fuhlrott replied, with a courtesy and readiness for
which I am infinitely indebted to him, to my inquiries, and
furthermore sent three excellent photographs. One of these
gives a side view of the skull, and from it Fig. 25 A. has been
shaded. The second (Fig. 26 A.) exhibits the wide openings

of the frontal sinuses upon the inferior surface of the frontal
part of the skull, into which, Dr. Fuhlrott writes, “a probe
may be introduced to the depth of an inch,” and demon-
strates the great extension of the thickened supraciliary ridges
beyond the cerebral cavity. The third, lastly, (Fig. 26 B.) ex-

142

hibits the edge and the interior of the posterior, or occipital,
part of the skull, and shows very clearly the two depressions
for the lateral sinuses, sweeping inwards towards the middle
line of the roof of the skull, to form the longitudinal sinus.
It was clear, therefore, that I had not erred in my interpre-
tation, and that the posterior lobe of the brain of the
Neanderthal man must have been as much flattened as I sus-
pected it to be.

In truth, the Neanderthal cranium has most extraordinary
characters. It has an extreme length of 8 inches, while its
breadth is only 5°75 inches, or, in other words, its length is to
its breadth as 100: 72. It is exceedingly depressed, measuring
only about 3°4 inches from the glabello-occipital Ime to the
vertex. The longitudinal arc, measured in the same way as
in the Engis skull, is 12 inches; the transverse arc cannot be
exactly ascertained, in consequence of the absence of the
temporal bones, but was probably about the same, and certainly
exceeded 103 inches. The horizontal circumference is 23
inches. But this great circumference arises largely from the
vast development of the supraciliary ridges, though the
perimeter of the brain case itself is not small. The large
supraciliary ridges give the forehead a far more retreating
appearance than its internal contour would bear out.

To an anatomical eye the posterior part of the skull is even
more striking than the anterior. The occipital protuberance

occupies the extreme posterior end of the skull, when the

glabello-occipital line is made horizontal, and so far from any
part of the occipital region extending beyond it, this region
_ of the skull slopes obliquely upward and forward, so that the
lambdoidal suture is situated well upon the upper surface of
the cranium. At the same time, notwithstanding the great
length of the skull, the sagittal suture is remarkably short
(44 inches), and the squamosal suture is very straight.

In replyto my questions Dr. Fuhlrott writes that the occipital
bone “is in astate of perfect preservation as far as the upper
semicircular line, which is a very strong ridge, linear at its

143

extremities, but enlarging towards the middle, where it forms
two ridges (bourrelets), united by a linear continuation, which
is slightly depressed in the middle.”

“Below the left ridge the bone exhibits an obliquely inclined
surface, six lines (French) long, and twelve lines wide.”

This last must be the surface, the contour of which is shown
in Fig. 25 a, below 6. It is particularly interesting, as it sug-
gests that, notwithstanding the flattened condition of the
occiput, the posterior cerebral lobes must have projected con-
siderably beyond the cerebellum, and as it constitutes one
among several points of similarity between the Neanderthal
cranium and certain Australian skulls.

Such are the two best known forms of human cranium,
which have been found in what may be fairly termed a fossil
state. Can either be shown to fill up or diminish, to any
appreciable extent, the structural interval which exists between
Man and the man-like apes? Or, on the other hand, does
neither depart more widely from the average structure of the
human cranium, than normally formed skulls of men are
known to do at the present day ?

It is impossible to form any opinion on these questions,
without some preliminary acquaintance with the range of

~ variation exhibited by human structure in general—a subject
which has been but imperfectly studied, while even of what is
known, my limits will necessarily allow me to give only a
very imperfect sketch. |

The student of anatomy is perfectly well aware that there
is not a single organ of the human body the structure of
which does not vary, to a greater or less extent, in different
individuals. The skeleton varies in the proportions, and even
to a certain extent in the connexions, of its constituent
bones. The muscles which move the bones vary largely in
their attachments. The varieties in the mode of distribution
of the arteries are carefully classified, on account of the
practical importance of a knowledge of their shiftings to the

144

surgeon. The characters of the brain vary immensely, nothing
being less constant than the form and size of the cerebral
hemispheres, and the richness of the convoiutions upon their
surface, while the most changeable structures of all in the
human brain, are exactly those on which the unwise attempt

has been made to base the distinctive characters of humanity,

viz. the posterior cornu of the lateral ventricle, the hippo-
campus minor, and the degree of projection of the posterior
lobe beyond the cerebellum. Finally, as all the world knows,
the hair and skin of human beings may present the most ex- —
traordinary diversities in colour and in texture.

So far as our present knowledge goes, the majority of the
structural varieties to which allusion is here made, are indivi-
dual. The ape-like arrangement of certain muscles which is
occasionally met with* in the white races of mankind, is not
known to be more common among Negroes or Australians :
nor because the brain of the Hottentot Venus was found to
be smoother, to have its convolutions more symmetrically
disposed, and to be, so far, more ape-like than that of ordinary
Europeans, are we justified in concluding a like condition
of the brain to prevail universally among the lower races of
mankind, however probable that conclusion may be.

Weare, in fact, sadly wanting in information respecting the
disposition of the soft and destructible organs of every Race
of Mankind but our own; and even of the skeleton, our Mu-
seums are lamentably deficient in every part but the cra-
nium. Skulls enough there are, and since the time when Blu-
menbach and Camper first called attention to the marked and
singular differences which they exhibit, skull collecting
and skull measuring has been a zealously pursued branch
of Natural History, and the results obtained -have been
arranged and classified by various writers, among whom the
late active and able Retzius must always be the first named.

Human skulls have been found to differ from one another,

* See an excellent Essay by Mr. Church on the Myology of the Orang,
in the Natural History Review, for 1861.

145

not merely in their absolute size and in the absolute capacity
of the brain case, but in the proportions which the diameters
of the latter bear to one another; in the relative size of the
bones of the face (and more particularly of the jaws and
) teeth) as compared with those of the skull; in the degree to

Fig. 27.—Side and front views of the round and orthognathous skull of a Cal-
muck after Yon Baer. One-third the natural size,

L

|

146

which the upper jaw (which is of course followed by the
lower) is thrown backwards and downwards under the fore-
part of the brain case, or forwards and upwards in front of
and beyond it. They differ further in the relations of the
transverse diameter of the face, taken through the cheek
bones, to the transverse diameter of the skull; in the more
rounded or more gable-like form of the roof of the skull,
and in the degree to which the hinder part of the skull is
flattened or projects beyond the ridge, into and below
which, the muscles of the neck are inserted.

In some skulls the brain case may be said to be ‘ round,
the extreme length not exceeding the extreme breadth by a
greater proportion than 100 to 80, while the difference may be
much less.* Men possessing such skulls were termed by Retzius
‘ brachycephalic, and the skull of a Calmuck, of which a front
and side view (reduced outline copies of which are given in
figure 27) are depicted by Von Baer in his excellent “ Crania
selecta,” affords a very admirable example of that kind of skull.
Other skulls, such as that of a Negro copied in fig. 28 from
Mr. Busk’s ‘ Crania typica,’ have a very different, greatly elon-
gated form, and may be termed ‘oblong’ In this skull the
extreme length is to the extreme breadth as 100 to not more
than 67, and the transverse diameter of the human skull may
fall below even this proportion. People having such skulls
were called by Retzius ‘ dolichocephalic.’

The most cursory glance at the side views of these two nes
will suffice to prove that they differ, in another respect, to a
very striking extent. The profile of the face of the Calmuck
is almost vertical, the facial bones being thrown downwards
and under the fore part of the skull. The profile of the face
of the Negro, on the other hand, is singularly inclined, the
front part of the jaws projecting far forward beyond the level
of the fore part of the skull. In the former case the skull is
said to be ‘orthognathous’ or straight-jawed; in the latter,

. % = no norma] human skull does the breadth of the brain-case exceed its
ength,

147

; it is called ‘prognathous, aterm which has been rendered, |
| with more force than elegance, by the Saxon equivalent,— |
| ‘ snouty.’
| Various methods have been devised in order to express with
. some accuracy the degree of prognathism or orthognathism .
of any given skull; most of these methods being essentially

j|

Ay

q

F1¢. 28.—Oblong and prognathous skull of a Negro; side and front views. |
One-third of the natural size.

u 2 .

148

modifications of that devised by Peter Camper, in order to
attain what he called the ‘facial angle.’

But a little consideration will show that any ‘ facial angle”
that has been devised, can be competent to express the
structural modifications involved in prognathism and orthog-

nathism, only in a rough and general sort of way. For the
lines, the intersection of which forms the facial angle, are
drawn through points of the skull, the position of each of
which is modified by a number of circumstances, so that the
angle obtained is a complex resultant of all these circum-
stances, and is not the expression of any one definite organic
relation of the parts of the skull.

I have arrived at the conviction that no comparison of
crania is worth very much, that is not founded upon the estab-
lishment of a relatively fixed base line, to which the measure-
ments, in all cases, must be referred. Nor do I think it isa
very difficult matter to decide what that base line should be.
The parts of the skull, like those of the rest of the animal
framework, are developed in succession : the base of the skull is
formed before its sides and roof ; it is converted into cartilage
earlier and more completely than the sides and roof: and the
cartilaginous base ossifies, and becomes soldered into one piece
long before the roof. I conceive then that the base of the skull
may be demonstrated developmentally to be its relatively fixed
part, the roof and sides being relatively moveable.

The same truth is exemplified by the study of the modifi-
cations which the skull undergoes in ascending from the
lower animals up to man.

In such a mammal asa Beaver (Fig. 29), a lie (a. 6.)
drawn through the bones, termed basioccipital, basisphenoid,
and presphenoid, is very long in proportion to the extreme
length of the cavity which contains the cerebral hemispheres
(9. h.). The plane of the occipital foramen (0. c.) forms a
slightly acute angle with this ‘ basicranial axis,’ while the
plane of the tentorium (2. T.) is inclined at rather more than
90° to the ‘ basicranial axis’ ; and so is the plane of the perfo-

149

rated plate (a. d.), by which the filaments of the olfactory
nerve leave the skull. Again, a line drawn through the axis of

‘the face, between the bones called ethmoid and vomer—the

Beaver.

Fie. 29.— Longitudinal and vertical sections of the skulls of a Beaver (Castor
Canadensis), a Lemur (L. Catta), and a Baboon (Cynocephalus Papio), ab,
the basicranial axis; dc. the occipital plane; ¢ 7’, the tentorial plane; a d, the
olfactory plane; fe, the basifacial axis; ¢ ba, occipital angle; Zia, tentorial
angle; dab, olfactory angle; ef d, cranio-facial angle; gh, extreme length of the
cavity which lodges the cerebral hemispheres or ‘ cerebral length.’ The length
of the basicranial axis as to this length, or, in other words, the proportional length
of the line g / to that of a db taken as 100, in the three skulls, is as follows: —Bea-
ver 70 to 100; Lemur 119 to 100 ; Baboon 144 to 100. In anadult male Gorilla
the cerebral length is as 170 to the basicranial axis taken as 100, in the Negro
(fig. 30) as 236 to 100. In the Constantinople skull (fig. 30) as 266 to 100.
The cranial difference between the highest Ape’s skull and the lowest Man’s is
therefore very strikingly brought out by these measurements.

In the diagram of the Baboon’s skull the dotted lines d'd?, &c. give the angles
of the Lemur’s and Beaver’s skull, as laid down upon the basicranial axis of the
Baboon. The line @ d has the same length in each diagram.

FS NE ET EN

150

“ basifacial axis” (f. e.) forms an exceedingly obtuse angle,
where, when produced, it cuts the ‘ basicranial axis.’

If the angle made by the line 8. c. with a. b., be called the
‘ occipital angle,’ and the angle made by the line a. d. with a. b.
be termed the ‘olfactory angle’ and that made by 7. 7. with a. d.
the ‘tentorial angle’ then all these, in the mammal in ques-
tion, are nearly right angles, varying between 80° and 110°.
The angle e. f. b., or that made by the cranial with the
facial axis, and which may be termed the ‘ cranio-facial
angle,’ is extremely obtuse, amounting, in the case of the
Beaver, to at least 150°.

But if a series of sections of mammalian skulls, intermediate
between a Rodent and a Man (Fig. 29), be examined, it will
be found that in the higher crania the basi-cranial axis
becomes shorter relatively to the cerebral length; that the
‘ olfactory angle’ and ‘ occipital angle’ become more obtuse ;
and that the ‘ cranio-facial angle,’ becomes more acute by
the bending down, as it were, of the facial axis upon the
~ eranial axis. Atthe same time, the roof of the cranium be-
comes more and more arched, to allow of the increasing
height of the cerebral hemispheres, which is eminently
characteristic of man, as well as of that backward extension,
beyond the cerebellum, which reaches its maximum in the
South American Monkeys. So that, at last, in the human
skull (Fig. 30), the cerebral length is between twice and
thrice as great as the length of the basicranial axis; the
olfactory plane is 20° or 30° on the under side of that axis;
the occipital angle, instead of being less than 90°, is as much
as 150° or 160°; the cranio-facial angle may be 90° or less,
and the vertical height of the skull may have a large propor-
tion to its length. ex

It will be obvious, from an inspection of the diagrams,
that the basicranial axis is, in the ascending series of Mam-
malia, a relatively fixed line, on which the bones of the
sides and roof of the cranial cavity, and of the face, may be
said to revolve downwards and forwards or backwards, accord-

151

ing to their position. The arc described hy any one bone or
plane, however, is not by any means always in proportion to
the arc described by another.

Now comes the important question, can we discern, between
the lowest and the highest forms of the human cranium
anything answering, in however slight a degree, to this revo-
lution of the side and roof bones of the skull upon the basi-
cranial axis observed upon so great a scale in the mammalian
series? Numerous observations lead me to believe that we
must answer this question in the affirmative.

ae

Fie. 30.—Sections of orthognathous (light contour) and prognathous (dark
contour) skulls, one-third of the natural size. ab, Basicranial axis; de, b' c’,
plane of the occipital foramen ; dd’, hinder end of the palatine bone ; ¢ e’, front
end of the upper jaw ; 7’2”, insertion of the tentorium,

152

The diagrams in figure 30 are reduced from very care-
fully made diagrams of sections of four skulls, two round
and orthognathous, two long and prognathous, taken longi-
tudinally and vertically, through the middle. The sectional
diagrams have then been superimposed, in such a manner,
that the basal axes of the skulls coincide by their anterior
ends, and in their direction. The deviations of the rest of
the contours (which represent the interior of the skulls only)
show the differences of the skulls from one another, when
these axes are regarded as relatively fixed lines.

The dark contours are those of an Australian and of a
Negro skull: the light contours are those of a Tartar skull,
in the Museum of the Royal College of Surgeons; and of a
well developed round skull from a cemetery in Constanti-
nople, of uncertain race, in my own possession.

It appears, at once, from these views, that the prognathous
skulls, so far as their jaws are concerned, do really differ
from the orthognathous in much the same way as, though
to a far less degree than, the skulls of the lower mammals
differ from those of Man. Furthermore, the plane of the
occipital foramen (b c) forms a somewhat smaller angle with
the axis in these particular prognathous skulls than in the
orthognathous ; and the like may be slightly true of the
perforated plate of the ethmoid—though this point is not so
clear. But it is singular to remark that, in another respect,
the prognathous skulls are less ape-like than the orthogna-
thous, the cerebral cavity projecting decidedly more beyond
the anterior end of the axis in the prognathous, than in the
orthognathous, skulls.

It will be observed that these diagrams reveal an im-

mense range of variation in the capacity and relative pro-
portion to the cranial axis, of the different regions of the
cavity which contains the brain, in the different skulls. Nor
is the difference in the extent to which the cerebral overlaps
the cerebellar cavity less singular. A round skull (Fig. 30,
Const.) may have a greater posterior cerebral projection than
a long one (Fig. 30. Negro).

153

Until human crania have been largely worked out in a
manner similar to that here suggested—until it shall be an
opprobrium to an ethnological collection to possess a single
skull which is not bisected longitudinally—until the angles
and measurements here mentioned, together with a number
of others of which I cannot speak in this place, are deter-
mined, and tabulated with reference to the basicranial axis
as unity, for large numbers of skulls of the different races

of Mankind, I do not think we shall have any very safe basis

for that ethnological craniology which aspires to give the
anatomical characters of the crania of the different Races of
Mankind.

At present, I believe that the general outlines of what
may be safely said upon that subject may be summed up
in a very few words. Draw a line on a globe from the Gold
Coast in Western Africa to the steppes of Tartary. At
the southern and western end of that line there live
the most dolichocephalic, prognathous, curly-haired, dark-

_ skinned of men—the true Negroes. At the northern and

eastern end of the same line there live the most brachy-
cephalic, orthognathous, straight-haired, yellow-skinned of
men—the Tartars and Calmucks. The two ends of this imagi-
nary line are indeed, so to speak, ethnological antipodes.
A line drawn at right angles, or nearly so, to this polar line ©
through Europe and Southern Asia to Hindostan, would
gives usa sort of equator, around which round-headed, oval-
headed, and oblong-headed, prognathous and orthognathous,
fair and dark races—but none possessing the excessively
marked characters of Calmuck or Negro—group themselves.

It is worthy of notice that the regions of the antipodal
races are antipodal in climate, the greatest contrast the
world affords, perhaps, being that between the damp, hot,
steaming, alluvial coast plains of the West Coast of Africa
and the arid, elevated steppes and plateaux of Central Asia,
bitterly cold in winter, and as far from the sea as any si of
the world can be.

154

From Central Asia eastward to the Pacific Islands and
subcontinents on the one hand, andto America on the other,
brachycephaly and orthognathism gradually diminish, and
are replaced by dolichocephaly and prognathism, less,
however, on the American Continent (throughout the
whole length of which a rounded type of skull prevails largely,
but not exclusively)* than in the Pacific region, where, at
length, on the Australian Continent and in the adjacent is-
lands, the oblong skull, the projecting jaws, and the dark skin
reappear ; with so much departure, in other respects, from the
Negro type, that ethnologists assign to these pone the special
title of ‘ Negritoes.’

The Australian skull is remarkable for its narrowness and
for the thickness of its walls, especially in the region of the
supraciliary ridge, which is frequently, though not by any
means invariably, solid throughout, the frontal sinuses re-
maining undeveloped. The nasal depression, again, is
extremely sudden, so that the brows overhang and give the
countenance a particularly lowering, threatening expression.
The occipital region of the skull, also, not unfrequently be-
comes less prominent; so that it not only fails to project
beyond a line drawn perpendicular to the hinder extremity
of the glabello-occipital line, but even, in some cases, begins
to shelve away from it, forwards, almost immediately. In
consequence of this circumstance, the parts of the occipital
bone which lie above and below the tuberosity make a much

" more acute angle with one another than is usual, whereby
the hinder part of the base of the skull appears obliquely
truncated. Many Australian skulls have a considerable
height, quite equal to that of the average of any other race, but
there are others in which the cranial roof becomes remarkably
depressed, the skull, at the same time, elongating so much
that, probably, its capacity is not diminished. The majority

* See Dr. D. Wilson’s valuable paper “On the supposed prevalence of one
Cranial Type throughout the American aborigines,”—Canadian Journal, Vol.
IT. 1857.

155

of skulls possessing these characters, which I have seen, are
from the neighbourhood of Port Adelaide in South Australia,
and have been used by the natives as water vessels; to which
end the face has been knocked away, and a string passed
through the vacuity and the occipital foramen, so that the
skull was suspended by the greater part of its basis.

‘Fie. 31.—An Australian skull from Western Port, in the Museum of the
Royal College of Surgeons, with the contour of the Neanderthal skull. Both
reduced to one-third the natural size.

Figure 31 represents the contour of a skull of this kind from
Western Port, with the jaw attached, and of the Neander-
thal skull, both reduced to one third of the size of nature. A
small additional amount of flattening and lengthening, with
a corresponding increase of the supraciliary ridge, would con-
vert the Australian brain case into a form identical with that
of the aberrant fossil.

And now, to return to the fossil skulls, and to the rank
which they occupy among, or beyond, these existing varieties of
cranial conformation. In the first place, I must remark, that,
as Professor Schmerling well observed (supra, p. 122) in com-
menting upon the Engis skull, the formation of a safe judgment
upon the question is greatly hindered bythe absence of the jaws

156

from both the crania,so that there is no means of deciding, with
certainty, whether they weremore or less prognathous than the
lower existing races of mankind. And yet, as we have seen, it
is more in this respect than any other, that human skulls vary,
towards and from, the brutal type—the brain case of an average
dolichocephalic European differing far less from that of a
Negro, for example, than his jaws do. In the absence of the
jaws, then, any judgment on the relations of the fossil skulls
to recent Races must be accepted with a certain reservation.

But taking the evidence as it stands, and turning first to
the Engis skull, I confess I can find no character in the
remains of that cranium which, if it were a recent skull,
would give any trustworthy clue as to the Race to which it
might appertain. Its contours and measurements agree very
well with those of some Australian skulls which I have ex-
amined—and especially has it a tendency towards that
occipital flattening, to the great extent of which, in some
Australian skulls, I have alluded. But all Australian skulls
do not present this flattening, and the supraciliary ridge of
the Engis skull is quite unlike that of the typical Austra-
lans.

On the other hand, its measurements agree equally well
with those of some European skulls. And assuredly, there
is no mark of degradation about any part of its structure.
It is, in fact, a fair average human skull, which might have
belonged to a philosopher, or might have contained the
thoughtless brains of a savage.

The case of the Neanderthal skull is very different. Under
whatever aspect we view this cranium, whether we regard its

vertical depression, the enormous thickness of its supraciliary
ridges, its sloping occiput, or its long and straight. squamosal
suture, we meet with ape-like characters, stamping it as the
most pithecoid of human crania yet discovered. But Professor
Schaaffhausen states (suprd, p. 131), that the cranium, in its
present condition, holds 1033.24 cubic centimetres of water,
or about 63 cubic inches, and as the entire skull could hardly

157

have held less than an additional 12 cubic inches, its capa-
city may be estimated at about 75 cubic inches, which is the
average capacity given by Morton for Polynesian and Hot-
tentot skulls.

So large a mass of brain as this, would alone suggest that
the pithecoid tendencies, indicated’ by this skull, did not
extend deep into the organization; and this conclusion is
borne out by the dimensions of the other bones of the skele-
ton given by Professor Schaaffhausen, which show that the
absolute height and relative proportions of the limbs, were
quite those of an European of middle stature. The bones
are indeed stouter, but this and the great development of the
muscular ridges noted by Dr. Schaaffhausen, are characters
to be expected in savages. The Patagonians, exposed with-
out shelter or protection to a climate possibly not very
dissimilar from that of Europe at the time during which the
Neanderthal man lived, are remarkable for the stoutness of
their limb bones.

In no sense, then, can the Neanderthal bones be regarded
as the remains of a human being intermediate between Men
and Apes. At most, they demonstrate the existence of a
Man whose skull may be said to revert somewhat towards the
pithecoid type —just as a Carrier, or a Pouter, or a Tumbler,
may sometimes put on the plumage of its primitive stock,
the Columba livia. And indeed, though truly the most
pithecoid of known human skulls, the Neanderthal cranium
is by no means so isolated as it appears to be at first, but
forms, in reality, the extreme term of a series leading gradu-
ally from it to the highest and best developed of human
crania. On the one hand, it is closely approached by the
flattened Australian skulls, of which I have spoken, from
which other Australian forms lead us gradually up to skulls
having very much the type of the Engis cranium. And, on
the other hand, it is even more closely affined to the skulls
of certain ancient people who inhabited Denmark during the
‘stone period,’ and were probably either contemporaneous

158

with, or later than, the makers of the ‘refuse heaps,’ or
‘ Kjokkenméddings ’ of that country.

i v 4
i
gh/ aa

iar a ft
RM wy

44

haa en ee
Ms if he
ae v1} a
Se

i nh Wy
: ay
te,

i
h ¥ fore! }

AVA
Ge

a &

r a \. i , 1 A
\ 7 W £6
ae

3

Fie. 32.—Ancient Danish skull from a tumulus at Borreby; one-third of the
natural size. From a camera lucida drawing by Mr. Busk.

The correspondence between the longitudinal contour of
the Neanderthal skull and that of some of those skulls from
the tumuli at Borreby, very accurate drawings of which have
been made by Mr. Busk, is very close. The occiput is quite
as retreating, the supraciliary ridges are nearly as prominent,
and the skull is as low. Furthermore, the Borreby skull

159

resembles the Neanderthal form more closely than any of the
Australian skulls do, by the much more rapid retrocession
of the forehead. On the other hand, the Borreby skulls are
all somewhat’ broader, in proportion to their length, than the
Neanderthal skull, while some attain that proportion of
breadth to length (80: 100) which constitutes brachycephaly.

In conclusion, I may say, that the fossil remains of Man
hitherto discovered do not seem to me to take us appreciably
nearer to that lower pithecoid form, by the modification of
which he has, probably, become what he is. And considering
what is now known of the most ancient Races of men ; seeing
that they fashioned flint axes and flint knives and bone-
skewers, of much the same pattern as those fabricated by the
lowest savages at the present day,and that we have every
reason to believe the habits and modes of living of such people
to have remained the same from the time of the Mammoth
and the tichorhine Rhinoceros till now, I do not know that
this result is other than might be expected.

Where, then, must we look for primeval Man? Was
the oldest Homo sapiens pliocene or miocene, or yet more
ancient? In still older strata do the fossilized bones of an
Ape more anthropoid, or a Man more pithecoid, than any
yet known await the researches of some unborn paleon-
tologist ?

Time will show. But, in the meanwhile, if any form of
the doctrine of progressive development is correct, we must
extend by long epochs the most liberal estimate that has yet
been made of the antiquity of Man.

THE END.

G. NORMAN, PRINTER, MAIDEN LANE, COVENT GARDEN.

Williams and Norgate’s Publications. .
YW UNDER’S SOPHOCLES, with English Notes. Sortoczns.

The Greek Text, with Annotations, Introduction, etc. by Epwarp
Wonprr. A new Edition, with the notes literally translated into English, and
a collation of DinporFr’s text. 2 vols. 8vo. Cloth beards 21s

*,* The Plays may be also had separately, price Zhree Shillings each, stitched.

MORGAN (J. T.) ENGLAND UNDER THE NORMAN
OCCUPATION. By Jamzs F, Morcan, M.A. Crown 8vo. Cloth 4s
Corrents: Domesday and the Congres r’s Policy —Measurement of Land
—<Agricultural Affairs, rent, &c.—ConditiO\.of tenants and peasantry—
Boroughs, cities, hundreds, wapentakes, and shire3 Titles and offices—Extinc-
tion of Villenage.

pauls KING ALFRED. Koenig Aclfred und seine Stelle

in der Geschichte Englands, von Dr RemnHoLp Pavri. 8svo. Sewed 6s

[FFLAND, DAS GEWISSEN, a Drama, the German Text,
- edited for the use of Schools, with copious grammatical and explanatory
notes, and a complete Vocabulary by J. W. Frarpersporrr, Professor of
Modern Languages in Queen’s College, Bdfast.° 12mo. Cloth. 1861 286d

[{RAEDERSDOREF, INTRODUCTION TO DANISH OR

NORWEGIAN; a Collection of useful Phrases and Sentences, arranged
in grammatical order, with reference to Rask’s Danish Grammar, and Extracts
from Danish and Norwegian historians, &c. with explanatory notes and a Vo-
cabulary at the foot of the page. 12mo. Cloth. 1860 48

MARIETTE. HALF HOURS OF FRENCH TRANSLA-

TION, or Extracts from the best English authors to be rendered inte
French, and Translations from Modern French authors to be re-translated, with
grammatical notes by ALruonse Martmrrs, Professor in King’s College, Lon-
don. 2nd edition, improved and enlarged. 8vo. Cloth. 1860 43 6d

RocuE (A.) HISTOIRE des PRINCIPAUX ECRIVAINS
FRANCAIS. 2 vols. 8vo. Cloth bds. 8s

Rocue (A.) GRAMMATRE FRANCAISE, Adoptée par le
Conseil Impérial de V’instruction publique pour les Lycées et les Colleges
de France. Nouvelle Edition. A Vusage des Anglais. Par A, Rocur,
Examinateur a l’Université de Londres, Directeur de VEdueational Institute.
12mo. Cloth bds. 28

BuGceL PROSATORI ITALIANT. Specimens of Italian

Prose Writers, from the 13th Century to the present time, with a Critical
and Biographical Notice of each Author; preceded by a Selection of Basy
Extracts, with Notes for Beginners. Crown 8vo. Cloth 6s

MABIOTITS ITALIAN GRAMMAR. Fourth Edition. A
Practical Grammar of the Italian Language. New Edition, revised,
enlarged and improved. By A, GaLLENGA, Ttalian Professor at University
College, London, Author of “Italy Past and Present,” &c, 12mo. Cloth 3s

VaGa’s LOGARITHMIC TABLES of Numbers and Tri-
gonometrical Functions, translated from the 40th or Dr. BREMIKER’S
thoroughly revised and enlarged Eprrion, by W. L, F. Fiscuer, M.A., F.R.S.,

Fellow of Clare Coll. Camb., Professor of Mathematics ig the University of St.
Andrews. Royal 8vo. Cloth bds. ae 78

Wilhkams and Norgate’s Publications.
(COOLEY (W. D.) THE ELEMENTS OF GEOMETRY

simplified and explained, with Practical Geometry and Supplement. By
W. D. Cooney, A.B. 12mo. Cloth oe

QCHEERER and BLANFORD on the BLOWPIPE. Inrno-

Duction to the Usz of the Mours-Biowrirr, with a description of the
Blowpipe Characters of the more important Minerals. Translated and compiled
from the works of Scheerer, Plattner, and others, by H. F. Buanrorp. 12mo.
Cloth 4 38 6d

ILLIAMS’ NEW ZEALAND DICTIONARY and GRAM-
MAR. Dictionary of the New Zealand or Maori Language. Two
Parts. With a Grammar and Colloquial Phrases. By Dr. W. WixtiaMs,
Bishop of Waiapu, Second Edition. 8vo. Cloth boards 8s

MAPS AND ATLASES.
Sx DOW'S WALL MAPS of PHYSICAL GEOGRAPHY.

An Enewisn Epirion, the Originals with Enerisuh Names and Explana-
tions, edited by J. TittEARD, Esq.

1, THE WORLD. The two Hemispheres (each 3 feet in diameter) and
two other Hemispheres, the Northern and Southern; also the World
in Mereator’s Projection. 12 Sheets 8s—Mounted with Rollers, 13s 6d

. EUROPE. 9 Sheets 8s— Mounted, with Rollers, 13s 6d
3. ASIA. 9 Sheets 7s 6d— Mounted, with Rollers, 13s
. AFRICA. 6 Sheets 6s—Mounted, with Rollers, 10s 6d
. AMERICA (North and South). 2 Maps, 10 Sheets
7s 6d—Mounted, with Roilers, 14s
. AUSTRALIA and AUSTRALASIA. 6 Sheets
8s—Mounted, with Rollers, 13s 6d
fe Be careful to order the English Edition.

GY DOW ’*S HANDBOOK to the SERIES of LARGE PHYSI-
CAL MAPS for SCHOOL INSTRUCTION, edited by J. Trrtearp.
8vo, Gotha-London, 1857 ls 6d

J LEPERT'S NEW ATLAS ANTIQUUS. Hight Coloured
Maps to illustrate Ancient History. 13 by 16 inches each; folded on
guards. Bds. 6s

VAN DE VELDE. MAP OF THE HOLY LAND, con-

structed from his own Surveys and those by Officers of Royal Engineers;
in 8 coloured sheets, 19 by 15 inches each, scale 1:315,000. In portfolio, 21s.
in a cloth case, 24s. Mounted, varnished, with Rollers 265

VAN DE VELDE’S MEMOIR TO ACCOMPANY THE
MAP OF THE HOLY LAND. 8vo. 1858. Cloth bds. 8s 6d

YAN DE VELDE’S PLAN OF JERUSALEM, the Town

and Environs, from the Ordnance Survey and Dr. 'Tobler’s measurements
(1; 4850) with a Memoir hy\Dr. Tobler and 3 old plans. 1858. Mounted on
linen in portfolio ° 10s 6d

+

im

‘ rs eg 7 ee ae eee ES eT ee me a aa ee der a eT gee Se " Read Peat wv 2
PRS ws ee ed ee ee et ay aa Sipe uit cee Re ea A MS oy
ee ee wi. = oe aS
eG rea: SS anaes saa - — F
—— . pete ie apn ~ setae ees coatuniabaoon weenie ; - . “= ee

pan a

% L. Moratin — Arriaza — Martinez

gees 2 he }
‘Williams and Norgate’s Publications.

DpAYY (JOHN, M.D.) ON THE DISEASES OF THE
ARMY; with contributions to Pathology. By Joun Davy, M.D., F.R.S.,

etc. Inspector General of Army Hospitals, H.P. 8vo. Cloth. 1862 15s

PIDDINGTON ’S SAILOR’S HORN-BOOK. A Practical
Exposition of the Theory of the Law of Storms and its Uses to Mariners

in all parts of the World. (4 charts.) Third edition, enlarged and improved.
8vo. Cloth. 1860 :

10s 6d
PIDDINGTON ’S CONVERSATIONS ABOUT HURRI-
CANES, for the use of Plain Sailors. 8vo. Cloth 75

HAREWOOD (W.) PLAN OF ROME. A topographical Plan

of Modern Rome, with the new additions, shewing also the Ruins and
ancient Monuments. By W. Harwood, with a complete alphabetical Index.
Folio. 1862 6s—Mounted in case, 7s 6]

DE. DAVIDSON’S REMOVAL from the PROFESSORSHIP ©
of Biblical Literature in the Lancashire Independent College, on account
of alleged error in Doctrine; a Statement of Facts, with remarks and criticisms.
By the Rev. Tu. Nicuoxas, Professor of Biblical Literature, &c. Presbyterian
College, Carmarthen. 8vo. pp. 136. 3s

I[‘RICOUPT’S GREEK REVOLUTION. 30. rerxornn ts.

TOPIA THES EAAHNIKHS EILANASTASEQS. (In Modern Greek.)
Now complete in 4 vols. 8vo, 48s
a Or

: Only a few complete copies remain, and persons desiring to complete
their copies‘are recommended to apply at once.

Sor earner ence gee ee Re
ELLY (WILLIAM) LECTURES ON THE BOOK OF
REVELATION. 8vo. Cloth. 1861 : 9s

A HOKAAYYIS IQANNOY. THE REVELATION OF J OHN,

Edited in Greek, with a new English version and a Statement of the chief
authorities and Various Readings. By Wittram Kerry. 8vo. as 6d

ENNEDY (JAMES) MODERN POETS AND POETRY
OF SPAIN. Conrents: Jovellanos — Iriarte — Melendez Valdes —

de la Rosa— The Duke de Rivas — Breton
de los Herreros—Heredia—Espronceda—Zorrilla. 8vo. Cloth.

Published at 16s, reduced to 83

ANCIENT DANISH BALLADS, translated from the originals

: with notes and introduction, by R. C. ALEXANDER Prior, M.D. 3 vols.
8vo. Cloth 31s 6d

| HAWKINS-HUXLEY. AN ELEMENTARY ATLAS OF

COMPARATIVE OSTEOLOGY. To consist of 12° Plates in Folio, —

_ drawn on Stone by B. Waternovse Hawxrs, Esq. The Figures selected and

arranged by Professor T. H. Huxtxy, F.R.S, (Zn the Press.)

JL UXLEY (Prov. T. H.) MAN’S PLACE IN NATURE:
being the substance of Lectures recently delivered at the Royal Insti-

tution, London, and at the Philosophical Institute, Edinburgh, on,

1, The Natural History of the Man-Like Ape.
2. The Relation of Man to the Lower Animals,
- 3. The Methods and Results of Palxontology.
4. On the Fossil Remains of Man. a oer
(With numerous Woodeuts.) (Zn the Press.)

“yee ee Mamta Pel OAT / os Foy

Eb PAA ME NORE b Sew Sh Gk? IN

Pl a,

eb

win pada
Pyne ane RE ef acdeie

Wares
tem

ie ae

Ne Se

rhe Ag
fee

Jo

ae

. BENE,

rn Sd P
a
: aa ee
ies Sa
Nat Sp

VIE Fats

uy ; 3 i ?
Oi : : i a } f : BA r %, oy, a Lieee

prolnaess
Mer OT a ie,
ate: