lastly of the toes. We have traces of this in our own decimal system, and in the Roman numerals, where, after the V., which is supposed to be an abbreviated picture of a human hand, we pass on to VI., etc., when the other hand no doubt was used. So again, "when we speak of threescore and ten, we are counting by the vigesimal system, each score thus ideally made standing for 20—for ‘one man,' as a Mexican or Carib would put it." "

According to a large and increasing school of philologists every language bears the marks of its slow and gradual evolution. So it is with the art of writing, for letters are rudiments of pictorial representations. It is hardly possible to read Mr. M'Lennan's work" and not admit that almost all civilized nations still retain traces of such rude habits as the forcible capture of wives. What ancient nation, as the same author asks, can be named that was originally monogamous? The primitive idea of justice, as shown by the law of battle and other customs of which vestiges still remain, was likewise most rude. Many existing superstitions are the remnants of former false religious beliefs. The highest form of religion-the grand idea of God hating sin and loving righteousness was unknown during primeval times.

Turning to the other kind of evidence: Sir J. Lubbock has shown that some savages have recently improved a little in some of their simpler arts. From the extremely curious account which he gives of the weapons, tools, and arts in use among savages in various parts of the world, it cannot be doubted that these have nearly all been independent dis

34 "Royal Institution of Great Britain," March 15, 1867. Also, "Researches into the Early History of Mankind," 1865.

35 "Primitive Marriage," 1865. See, likewise, an excellent article, evidently by the same author, in the "North British Review," July, 1869. Also, Mr. L. H. Morgan, "A Conjectural Solution of the Origin of the Class System of Relationship, in "Proc. American Acad. of Sciences," vol. vii., February, 1868. Prof. Schaaffhausen ("Anthropolog. Review," October, 1869, p. 373) remarks on "the vestiges of human sacrifices found both in Homer and the Old Testament.

coveries, excepting perhaps the art of making fire." The Australian boomerang is a good instance of one such independent discovery. The Tahitians when first visited had advanced in many respects beyond the inhabitants of most of the other Polynesian islands. There are no just grounds for the belief that the high culture of the native Peruvians and Mexicans was derived from abroad;" many native plants were there cultivated, and a few native animals domesticated. We should bear in mind that, judging from the small influence of most missionaries, a wandering crew from some semi-civilized land, if washed to the shores of America, would not have produced any marked effect on the natives, unless they had already become somewhat advanced. Looking to a very remote period in the history of the world, we find, to use Sir J. Lubbock's well-known terms, a paleolithic and neolithic period; and no one will pretend that the art of grinding rough flint tools was a borrowed one. In all parts of Europe, as far east as Greece, in Palestine, India, Japan, New Zealand, and Africa, including Egypt, flint tools have been discovered in abundance; and of their use the existing inhabitants retain no tradition. There is also indirect evidence of their former use by the Chinese and ancient Jews. Hence there can hardly be a doubt that the inhabitants of these countries, which include nearly the whole civilized world, were once in a barbarous condition. To believe that man was aboriginally civilized and then suffered utter degradation in so many regions, is to take a pitiably low view of human nature. It is apparently a truer and more cheerful view that progress has been much more general than retrogression; that man has risen, though by slow and interrupted steps, from a lowly condition to the highest standard as yet attained by him in knowledge, morals, and religion.

36 Sir J. Lubbock, "Prehistoric Times," 2d edit., 1869, chap. xv. and xvi. et passim. See, also, the excellent ninth chapter in Tylor's "Early History of Mankind," 2d edit., 1870.

31 Dr. F. Müller has made some good remarks to this effect in the "Reise der Novara: Anthropolog. Theil," Abtheil. iii., 1868, s. 127.

CHAPTER VI

ON THE AFFINITIES AND GENEALOGY OF MAN

Position of man in the animal series-The natural system genealogicalAdaptive characters of slight value-Various small points of resemblance between man and the Quadrumana-Rank of man in the natural system-Birthplace and antiquity of man-Absence of fossil connecting-links-Lower stages in the genealogy of man, as inferred, first, from his affinities, and, secondly, from his structure-Early androgynous condition of the Vertebrata-Conclusion

E

VEN if it be granted that the difference between man and his nearest allies is as great in corporeal structure as some naturalists maintain, and although we must grant that the difference between them is immense in mental power, yet the facts given in the earlier chapters appear to declare, in the plainest manner, that man is descended from some lower form, notwithstanding that connecting-links have not hitherto been discovered.

Man is liable to numerous slight and diversified variations, which are induced by the same general causes, are governed and transmitted in accordance with the same general laws, as in the lower animals. Man has multiplied so rapidly that he has necessarily been exposed to struggle for existence, and consequently to natural selection. He has given rise to many races, some of which differ so much from each other that they have often been ranked by naturalists as distinct species. His body is constructed on the same homological plan as that of other mammals. He passes through the same phases of embryological development. He retains many rudimentary and useless structures, which no doubt were once serviceable. Characters occasionally make their reappearance in him, which we have reason to

If the

believe were possessed by his early progenitors. origin of man had been wholly different from that of all other animals, these various appearances would be mere empty deceptions; but such an admission is incredible. These appearances, on the other hand, are intelligible, at least to a large extent, if man is the co-descendant with other mammals of some unknown and lower form.

Some naturalists, from being deeply impressed with the mental and spiritual powers of man, have divided the whole organic world into three kingdoms-the Human, the Animal, and the Vegetable-thus giving to man a separate kingdom.' Spiritual powers cannot be compared or classed by the natu ralist; but he may endeavor to show, as I have done, that the mental faculties of man and the lower animals do not differ in kind, although immensely in degree. A difference in degree, however great, does not justify us in placing man in a distinct kingdom, as will perhaps be best illustrated by comparing the mental powers of two insects, namely, a coccus or scale-insect and an ant, which undoubtedly belong to the same class. The difference is here greater than, though of a somewhat different kind from, that between man and the highest mammal. The female coccus, while young, attaches itself by its proboscis to a plant; sucks the sap, but never moves again; is fertilized and lays eggs; and this is its whole history. On the other hand, to describe the habits and mental powers of worker-ants would require, as Pierre Huber has shown, a large volume; I may, however, briefly specify a few points. Ants certainly communicate information to each other, and several unite for the same work, or for games of play. They recognize their fellow-ants after months of absence, and feel sympathy for each other. They build great edifices, keep them clean, close the doors in the evening, and post sentries. They make roads as well as tunnels under rivers, and temporary bridges over them, by

1 Isidore Geoffroy St.-Hilaire gives a detailed account of the position assigned to man by various naturalists in their classifications: "Hist. Nat. Gén.," tom, ii, 1859, pp. 170-189.

clinging together. They collect food for the community, and when an object too large for entrance is brought to the nest, they enlarge the door, and afterward build it up again. They store up seeds, of which they prevent the germination, and which, if damp, are brought up to the surface to dry. They keep aphides and other insects as milch-cows. They go out to battle in regular bands, and freely sacrifice their lives for the common weal. They emigrate according to a preconcerted plan. They capture slaves. They move the eggs of their aphides, as well as their own eggs and cocoons, into warm parts of the nest, in order that they may be quickly hatched; and endless similar facts could be given. On the whole, the difference in mental power between an ant and a coccus is immense; yet no one has ever dreamed of placing these insects in distinct classes, much less in distinct kingdoms. No doubt the difference is bridged over by other insects; and this is not the case with man and the higher apes. But we have every reason to believe that the breaks in the series are simply the results of many forms having become extinct.

Prof. Owen, relying chiefly on the structure of the brain, has divided the mammalian series into four sub-classes. One of these he devotes to man; in another he places both the Marsupials and the Monotremata; so that he makes man as distinct from all other mammals as are these two latter groups conjoined. This view has not been accepted, as far as I am aware, by any naturalist capable of forming an independent judgment, and therefore need not here be further considered.

We can understand why a classification founded on any single character or organ-even an organ so wonderfully complex and important as the brain-or on the high development of the mental faculties, is almost sure to prove

2 Some of the most interesting facts ever published on the habits of ants are given by Mr. Belt, in his "Naturalist in Nicaragua," 1874. See, also, Mr. Moggridge's admirable work, "Harvesting Ants," etc., 1873; also, "L'Instinct chez les Insectes," by M. George Pouchet, "Revue des Deux Mondes," February, 1870, p. 682.