the skulls of men and apes of the same age, which he himself has made, shows that no doubt there is a slight likeness between the types in youth, but that it is not nearly enough to overthrow the assertion that there is a sharp distinction between the human and apish skulls. They are really entirely different, even in the first stage, and at all times the gap between man and the ape is incomparably greater than that between the ape and the other animals."1

With regard to the development of the brain, Th. Bischoff gives us the following as the result of his observations. "The brains of man, of the orang, chimpanzee, and gorilla are nearly related, in spite of the great differences between them. But if we compare in succession the human brain with that of an orang, the brain of the latter with that of a chimpanzee, and so on through a hylobates, semnopithecus, etc. . . we shall nowhere find a larger, or nearly so large a gulf, in the brain development of two of the series, as we find between the brains of man and the orang or chimpanzee. The gulf which separates the convolutions of a man's brain from the convolutions in the brain of an orang or a chimpanzee, cannot be bridged over by pointing to the gulf which separates the orang or chimpanzee from the lemur. The latter is filled up by the different intermediate kinds of apes; the stages with which to fill up the former have still to be found."2 Professor

apes and grown up, fully developed men. But with every month and year which passes the skull of even the most manlike ape becomes less like that of man."-Virchow, Menschen und Affenschädel, p. 22. See above, p. 135.

1

1 Pp. 83, 87; cf. Lucæ, Archiv für Anthr. vi. 30, 33, v. 518.

2 Die Grosshirnwendungen, p. 102.

Ranke, speaking at a meeting of the German Anthropological Society in Berlin,' August 1880, gave an account of the scientific work lately done by Th. v. Bischoff, A. Ecker, and R. Virchow. In the course of his remarks he said, "The popular writings of the present day would almost lead us to suppose that the differences between man and the anthropoid apes are really so slight, that if the latter were committed to the care of a German schoolmaster for a few generations they would develop into men. This view is decidedly controverted by comparative and pathological anatomy, and by the history of development. The savants I have named are distinctly opposed to that popular philosophical tendency in natural science which falsely seeks to intrench itself behind the name of a great English savant. The most eminent biologists are distinctly and openly opposed to the way in which scientific conclusions are now made use of to establish assertions in natural philosophy."

At any rate, the differences between man and the apes are greater than is agreeable to those who would apply the theory of descent to both. Vogt thinks it necessary to ask,2 "Can we find stages which will bridge over the gulf still existing between the ape and the negro, and which will lead step by step from the manlike ape to the negro, and from him to the white man?" He answers that it is possible, of course, that a species of ape may be found which stands nearer to man than the gorilla; but that it would be folly to rely on the mere

1 The account may be found in the 13th volume of the Archiv für Anthr.

2 Vorlesungen, i. p. 244.

possibility of such an event. It is still more unlikely that a race of men will be found who are nearer the apes than are the negroes; the world seems to have been too thoroughly examined in this respect to leave room for such a "hope." hope." There is only one stage which he thinks he has found, the so-called microcephali, men who from their youth upwards are idiots, and whose outward appearance, according to Vogt, gives a distinctly apelike impression. He thinks that microcephalism is a state "which in all its essential characteristics leads us back to the stock from which the race of men was developed; to the common ancient stock of the primatæ, from which both we and the apes have sprung." But if it is possible that, by a check in his development and formation, man should be brought nearer to the ape, and "sink down to the ape," we cannot deny, he says, that it is possible that similarly the ape by a continuation of development may be brought nearer to man.' It is admitted that Vogt wrote all his treatises about microcephalism without ever examining the brain of a microcephalous idiot; he only made use of pictures and moulds of the skull." Since then several microcephalous idiots have been thoroughly examined, the matter was discussed at the meeting of the Anthropological Society at Stuttgard in 1872,3 and has also been treated in several books and pamphlets by Aeby,

1

in

Vorslesungen, i. p. 346. Vogt has treated the matter more in detail in French, in “Mémoires sur les microcéphales ou hommes-singes; German, in "Ueber die Mikrocephalen oder Affen-Menschen,” in the Archiv für Anthr. ii. 129. Also shortly in his essay, "Menschen, AffenMenschen, Affen und Prof. Th. Bischoff in München," in Moleschott's Untersuchungen zur Naturlehre des Menschen und der Thiere, x. 493, Giessen 1868.

2 Archiv für Anthr. v. 496, 499.

3 Archiv für Anthr. v. 496.

Luschka, Ecker, Virchow, Bischoff, and others,' and it may now be considered as proved that microcephalism is simply a pathological phenomenon belonging to disease, which not even an evolutionist can use to prove man's descent from the ape.

Speaking at the meeting of the Anthropological Society at Constance in 1877, Krollmann said: "It was formerly suggested that the microcephalous idiots might be a reversion of the human race to a long extinct ancestor, a reversion to the ape. This view may now be considered as having been completely refuted." Virchow also gave an account of a microcephalous girl whom he had carefully observed. He said: "Psychologically the child does not in the least resemble an ape. All the positive powers and qualities of the ape are wanting, there is nothing of the psychology of the ape, the psychology is simply that of an incomplete little child. Every feature is human; the child is a human being of low organization, and in no way differs from the human type.""

3

According to the account given by A. de Quatrefages of the progress of anthropology in France, the eminent French physiologist Gratiolet speaks just in the same way about microcephalism as the German savants I have mentioned. According to this account the doctrine of man's relationship to the ape finds much less support among French anthropologists than it does in Germany. Anthropologists," says Quatrefages,

1 Aeby, Die Schädelformen, p. 87. Archiv für Anthr. vi. 263, vii. 1. Virchow, Menschen und Affenschädel, p. 27. Peschel, Volkerkunde, p. 67. 2 Correspondenz-blatt der deutschen Gesellschaft für Anthropologie, No. 9, Sept. 1877, pp. 131, 135.

"who are partly disagreed on many other points, are at one on this point and have arrived at the same conclusions, namely, that nothing warrants the assertion that the brain of the ape is a human brain arrested in its development, and that the latter is a more fully developed ape's brain (Gratiolet); that an examination of the organism in general, and of the extremities in particular, shows us that combined with a common ground-plan there exist differences of form and structure which are incompatible with the idea of a common descent for man and the ape (Gratiolet, Alix); that apes do not approach by perfection to man, and the human type does not approach by degradation to the ape (Bert); that there exists no possible bridge between man and the ape, unless we turn the laws of development upside down (Pruner Bey)," and so on.

Therefore, to recapitulate what we have said, even supposing the theory of descent to be true, its extension to man remains arbitrary, because man differs more markedly from the highest apes than do any two kinds of animals which stand next to one another; and because there are no intermediate forms which can bridge over the gulf between man and the ape, it having been proved that microcephalous idiots are not this intermediate form. Only one thing is still possible; such intermediate forms may have existed, and have died out like other species, or forms of organic beings. Have we then any proofs that apes more man-like than the gorilla, or men more ape-like than the negro, have existed? Huxley has discussed this question most exhaustively in the third part of the book I have mentioned, and he, certainly an unprejudiced witness,

VOL. II.

K