squirrels, and even bats, in general appearance, more than the highest Apes, but all classed together in one Order, from the fact that all have four prehensile or hand-like paws. Now, Mr. Huxley, in comparing the differences between a man and the Gorilla, picks out some one of these hundred species, to show that it exhibits just as much or more difference. It makes no matter with Mr. Huxley, whether the particular difference under consideration be found in the lower animal in excess or defect,-in the ascending or descending scale, in reference to man as the standard,-it is sufficient for his argument, that the particular difference be as great or greater, than the same existing between Man and the Gorilla.

He might use precisely the same argument, and cite precisely the same particulars, to prove that Man is next of kin to the Bear, which stands in Cuvier's next Order of carnivora. This Order is still larger than the first, and is composed of denizens of the air, water, land, and under the land; comprising bats, sea-cows, kangaroos and moles, besides the numerous tribes of carnivorous quadrupeds inhabiting the surface of the earth. Now, in whatever respect a Bear differs from a man, it would be easy for him to find some animal in this miscellaneous category, differing still more widely from the Bear, and therefore, according to his argument, Bear and Man must be placed in the same Order. Appending his corollary with as much propriety in this case as in the other, he would come very satisfactorily to the conclusion, that Man is descended from the Bear. This would be rather an improvement upon his friend and tutor, Darwin, who can see no difficulty in a bear becoming the progenitor of whales.

In closing his citations of one set of examples, Mr. Huxley makes a very pertinent remark, which we underscore.

"These examples (he says) might be greatly multiplied, but they suffice 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 differences of proportion can have no ordinal value."

This is exactly the truth, and is, as we think, inconsistent with his argument. These, as well as all other differences enu

merated by him, can have no ordinal value, either to advance the Gorilla into the same Order as Man, or to degrade Man into the same Order as the gorilla. It is not our intention, at present, to combat the opinion of Mr. Huxley, that Man and the Quadrumana ought to be placed in the same Order of Primates. Nor is there any necessity for doing so. This, or any other classification of Man's body in the Animal Kingdom, can have no proper bearing on the momentous question propounded by Mr. Huxley, nor has it any logical connection with his argument,-neither does it lend any support to the preposterous conclusion at which he arrives. We wish, at present, simply to expose the scientific invalidity of his argument, and show how his specious and deceptious presentation of it is calculated to mislead the unlearned reader, for whom this book, as the author informs us, is chiefly prepared.

Mr. Huxley reserves, for separate and special consideration, the Foot, Hand, and Brain, upon which, he says, so much stress has been laid for establishing supposed structural distinctions between Man and the Apes. He accordingly gives to each a careful examination, and derives from them his strongest reasons for placing Man and the Gorilla in the same Order, which, with him, is tantamount to establishing unity of origin and community of nature.

Mr. Huxley seems to think that if he can show that the foot, hand, and brain of the gorilla are similar in structure to the corresponding organs in man, and do not present any greater differences than those which occur among animals which are classified in the same Order as the gorilla-that he will then have proved man's consanguinity with this brute. He forgets that if he were able to show not only the similarity, but the absolute identity of structure of these organs-yet, if man possess distinctive attributes and characteristics which the gorilla does not possess, such differences would render nugatory all points of similarity which might be adduced to show unity of origin or identity of nature. Such differences, Mr. Huxley admits to exist, as we shall have occasion to point out in the sequel. Waiving all physiological, intellectual and moral differences-the argument that structural differences are not essen

tial or fundamental, because as great or greater ones occur in animals which have been placed in the same Order as the gorilla, has no weight except in regard to a question of correct scientific classification. It has not the slightest scientific value in determining man's affinity to the gorilla.

The first of the three great points of anatomical resemblance upon which Mr. Huxley relies to prove man's descent from the gorilla, is the fact that the latter animal has a foot, and therefore has been improperly classified by Cuvier as quadrumanous, or four-handed.

He labors to prove that the hind paws of the gorilla are true feet, in order to bring man down from the isolated pedestal on which Cuvier and other naturalists have placed him, into the same rank as the apes; and by thus placing both in one and the same order of "Primates," he imagines that he has conclusively proved their unity of origin, and established man's true place in Nature.

He admits that

"At first sight the termination of the hind limb of the gorilla looks very hand-like, and as it is still more so in many of the lower apes, it is not wonderful that the appellatiɔn ‘quadrumana,' or four-handed creatures, adopted from the older anatomists by Blumenbach, and unfortunately rendered current by Cuvier, should have gained such wide acceptance as a name for the Simian group.”—p. 108.

Cuvier uses the word paws (" pattes") in speaking both of the fore and hind extremities of the quadrumana, which he describes as having four hands, but he was just as far from admitting that they had true hands, as that they had true feet, according to the human standard. He very justly considered the prehensile character of their hind paws more analogous in function to hands than to feet, and therefore classified them according to this peculiarity-in contradistinction to other brutes who were properly quadrupeds, and to separate them anatomically from man, who is the only proper two-handed or bimanous animal. The true bearing of Mr. Huxley's argument is against this classification of Cuvier, which, like all other classifications, is more or less arbitrary. It has really nothing to do with the great question which he proposes to solve, and

its only value is to show that Cuvier, according to Mr. Huxley's view of classification, committed a blunder by designating apes as quadrumanous; since they have feet as well as hands, and therefore, according to him, are as much entitled as man to be ranked as bimana. It is very apparent that his argument is based on a verbal quibble; a supposed misuse of a term, and its only logical bearing is against Cuvier's nomenclature. The fact which Cuvier recognized is, that these animals have neither true hands nor true feet, according to the human standard, but paws, which present many striking resemblances to human hands and feet.

In order to prove that the gorilla is a bimanous biped like man, Mr. Huxley first establishes a rule to enable us to have "distinct and clear ideas of what constitutes a hand and what a foot." He contrasts the bones of the human hand and foot, and shows, while there is a general similarity and "some singular resemblances" in their homologous parts, yet "there is a fundamental difference in the structure of the foot and hand," which constitutes them distinct organs. Among the singular resemblances he notices, in contrast with the artificial immobility of the "civilized great toe," the "great amount of mobility, and even some sort of opposability," of the great toe among uncivilized and barefooted people, which enable them to discharge with the foot some of the offices of the hand. The object of this remark is obvious. He would like to insinuate that there are some people who might, just as properly as the gorilla, be considered quadrumanous in consequence of the prehensile character of their feet. He concludes, however, that, notwithstanding such resemblance, there is a fundamental difference between the great toe and thumb-for he tells us, though after all it must be recollected that the structure of its joints and the arrangement of its bones necessarily render its prehensile action far less perfect than the thumb."

66

It is important here to note, that if the human foot had been prehensile, like the hand, the above structural difference between the toe and the thumb would not have been considered by our author as fundamental. Admitting this, it follows legitimately, that if we find the hind paw of the ape as prehensile as the

fore paw, then there is no fundamental difference in the design and function of these organs, although differing in structure. It also follows, that if the hind paw of the ape is just as prehensile as the fore paw, there must necessarily be a fundamental difference between it and the human foot, which is not prehensile, however similar they may be in structure.

He next compares the muscles of the human hand and foot, showing the general similarity and special differences, and finally arrives at the conclusion, that a foot is distinguished from a hand by the three "following absolute anatomical differences :

"1st. By the arrangement of the tarsal bones.

2nd. By having a short flexor and a short extensor muscle of the digits in place of a long one in the hand.

3rd. By possessing the muscle termed peronaus longus."

He proceeds to apply these tests to the hind paw of the gorilla, and acknowledges that there are many important differences, some of which he specifies; but these give him no trouble whatever. They vanish in the presence of his unique argument which he uses as a panacea for all difficulties, and advances as proof on all disputed points. Whenever he encounters a troublesome difference between man and the gorilla, he calls up some other member of the ape family to show that he departs just as widely from the gorilla standard, and therefore (!) this difference between the gorilla and man is not fundamental. In regard to this point of difference he says,

"I have dwelt upon this point 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." p. 110.

The absurdity of such an argument will unfold itself as we proceed.

Notwithstanding the many striking departures from the human standard, he comes to the conclusion that "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 in no sense a hand." We entirely concur in the conclusion, that the go