Изображения страниц

highest of the anthropoid apes, we find that the difference between them and man shades away by degrees. Man walks erect, They can walk semi-erect. They are hairy. So is the unborn child. Adult man is in a certain sense hairless. But there are among mankind very hairy races, and even among the highly civilized of mankind there are hairy individuals. Moreover, where hair is least conspicuous on the person it still exists in what is called the lanugo form all over the body, except on the palms of the hands, the soles of the feet, and the mucous membrane openings to the interior of the body, such as the lips. And to this fact may be added that the lanugo hair on the human body lies as to direction on the different parts just as it does on the anthropoid apes.

The anthropoid apes, equally with man, are tailless, but, in being tailless, both evidence, in the os coccygis, the lowest of the vertebræ, what seem to be aborted spinal processes representing another original constitution of the part. The internal organs are sensibly alike, with only those variations which are found among individual men. The brains are so similar as to make the comparison between them not so much one of degree as of kind.

Brain, being the organ of the mind, especially invites comparison between it, as it appears in man and as it appears in the lower animals, because it is through brain-power chiefly that man's pre-eminence in nature asserts itself. It is well, therefore, to observe first what physically renders brain most efficient as an organ; and, lastly, what are the chief differences as demonstrated between man and the anthropoid apes. Bear in mind, however, that man is not supposed to be descended from any one of them, but from a common progenitor, and therefore to have inherited through his descent certain traits by which he is allied to individuals in collateral lines of descent.

Full description of the brain is to be found only in works

on anatomy, and would find no appropriate place here. Fortunately, however, the brain possesses certain large characteristic features which are obviously related to greater or less excellence in its constitution. The great mass of the brain, the cerebrum, consists of what are called the cerebral hemispheres, which physically represent the highest type of the brain-power of the individual. The cerebrum, cerebellum, pons, and medulla oblongata, continuous organs, represent, in sum, the nervous system relating to the special senses and the movements of the body.

Low types of the cerebrum are characterized by great symmetry as to general and special conformation. The smallness of the cerebellum, or more particularly the greater or less degree by which it is overlapped by the cerebrum, is also another characteristic of low type of brain. In man, the higher the intelligence of the race or the individual, the less is the brain symmetrical, and the more does it lie in folds, or what are called convolutions. The brain of the microcephalous idiot evidences by its general symmetry and absence of highly convoluted form its great inferiority. In the lower types of the lower animals the cerebrum is distinctively smooth and symmetrical, while, reaching man, it is not only highly variable in size and symmetry, but is variously convoluted in the individual. The development in the human embryo presents the same general sequences, and through its testimony offers the same suggestions to the mind.

Other things being equal, size of brain is indicative of intellect, but other things are very rarely equal, and hence the very highest types of brain, those in which the greatest size and the most highly convoluted character are combined, are very rare. When such occur the person possessing them becomes, with opportunity, great among his fellows. According to Dr. Maudsley, one of the highest authorities on these subjects, quoting from a paper by Dr. Thurnam, the average brain-weight of ordinary European men is 49 ounces; of congenital idiots, 42 ounces;

and of microcephalous idiots, 374 ounces; whereas the brainweight of 10 distinguished men named, among them Daniel Webster, was 54 ounces.

As far back as 1863, Huxley, one of the greatest of anatomists and biologists of any age, published a small work entitled "Evidence as to Man's Place in Nature," part of which was effectively a résumé of six lectures which he had delivered in 1860 to workingmen, and of two, delivered in 1862, before the Philosophical Institution of Edinburgh. In that work, while incidentally and provisionally accepting the Darwinian theory, he, confining himself to his own special branch of science, gave, after an ample discussion of the subject of man's derivation, his conclusion that, while man differs enormously from the chimpanzee and the gorilla, yet the points of resemblance are so numerous as to warrant us in believing that they are all derived from the same primitive stock. He said :—

But, in enunciating this important truth, I must guard myself against a form of misunderstanding which is very prevalent. I find, in fact, that those who endeavor 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 insignificant. 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 Homo and Troglodytes.

It would be no less wrong than absurd to deny the existence of this chasm; but it is at least equally wrong and absurd to exaggerate its magnitude, and, resting on the admitted 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 is a 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 differences 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 justification for placing him in a distinct order.

This Huxley said, despite the fact that the brain of the gorilla is only about half the size of the human brain. He


shows that the difference in volume of the cranial cavity in different races of mankind is greater absolutely than that between the lowest man and the highest ape, while relatively about the The largest human skull, he says, measured by Dr. Morton, of Philadelphia, the craniologist, had very nearly double the capacity of the smallest healthy human skull, a far greater difference than that between the smallest healthy human skull and the skull of the largest gorilla. And he had found, in addition to this, that, in the fact of the anthropoid apes possessing true although imperfect feet, opposable thumbs, similar dentition, and similar internal organs to those of man, the belief is warranted that they belong to the same order with him.

So convinced did Huxley remain of the justness of his conclusions that, in 1874, he repeated them in these words:

In view of these facts, I do not hesitate, in this year 1874, to repeat and insist upon the proposition which I enunciated in 1863. 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 brain of a chimpanzee and of man is almost insignificant when compared with that between the chimpanzee brain and that of a lemur.

Dr. Maudsley remarks, in his work on "Body and Mind," speaking of the action of an idiotic woman :—

Was it really the re-appearance of a primitive instinct of animal nature,— a faint echo from a far-distant past, testifying to a kinship which man has almost outgrown or has grown too proud to acknowledge? No doubt such animal traits are marks of extreme human degeneracy, but it is no explanation to call them so; degenerations come by law, and are as natural as natural law can make them.

. . . Summing up, as it were, in itself the leading forms of the vertebrate type, there is truly a brute brain within the man's; and when the latter stops short of its characteristic development as human,-when it remains arrested at or below the level of an orang's brain,-it may be presumed that it will manifest its most primitive functions, and no higher functions. . . . . We need not, however, confine our attention to idiots only. Whence come the savage snarl, the destructive disposition, the obscene language, the wild howl, the offensive habits, displayed by some of the insane? Why should a human being, deprived of his reason, ever become so brutal in character as some do unless he has the brute nature within him?

[ocr errors]

In Darwin's work, on the "Expression of the Emotions," he shows that the mute expressions of man and of some of

the lower animals throughout all the world are fundamentally the same. No matter how different the races or subspecies of man, they all express emotion in the same manner. And from this fact, taken in connection with another fact (of the enormous divergence of those races in every particular, -mental, moral, and physical), he justly deduces the conclusion that they must all be derived from some single stock, which must have been almost human in structure, and largely so in mind, before the races diverged from each other. That this wondrous conformity among races so dissimilar could have been acquired through independent lines of descent seemed to him incredible. Yet, as he justly says, that very incredible thing must have happened if the different races of men have descended from several originally distinct species.

That man is not supposed by any naturalist to belong to the same species as does the chimpanzee or the gorilla must be evident to everybody. Where does he belong in the animal king dom? No one can deny that he belongs to the kingdom of ani mals, to the sub-kingdom of vertebrates, and to the class of mammals. Why should he then object to go into the next division, the order of primates,—with the anthropoid apes and other forms, and demand, as a solitary genus, an order all to himself for his representation in nature?

His preference is simply a matter of prejudice derived from education, which will be entirely removed before many years elapse. Man has so looked upon and worshipped himself as a demigod, in his be-crowned, be-gartered, and otherwise decorated conditions, down to the very people, which regards its voice as the will of God, that he finds it hard to descend from his throne. Yet reason, the highest throne which he can ever occupy, should tell him that whence he came is of little moment compared with what he is, whither he tends, and what is to be his destiny. What difference, except for the better, does it make to him if he

« ПредыдущаяПродолжить »