prove that man is in the self same Order as the gorilla, and has the self same origin and nature. It stands thus: Because the anterior claws of the marmoset (which is called a quadruman) differ more widely from the fore-paws of a gorilla (which is also called a quadruman) than these do from the hands of man (who is not a quadruman);therefore, the differences of the human hand, "be they what they may," are not fundamental nor distinctive! Hence man must take his place in the same Order as the gorilla and marmoset!! Consequently, the unity of origin and nature of man and the gorilla follows as a necessary corollary !!! In other words, because certain differences in the organs of two animals which happen to be placed in the same Order, (one at the head and the other at the tail) are greater than those which are presented by similar organs of a third animal which is not in that Order-therefore, this latter animal must be ranked in the same Order as the other two, let the differences of these organs, as well as other differences, be what they may-and also be considered identical in nature. Mr. Huxley might just as well argue that, because the five-digited, not horny-hoofed foot of the elephant (a Pachyderm *) differs more widely from the single-cleft horny-hoofed foot of the hog (also a Pachyderm) than this last does from the single-cleft horny-hoofed foot of the sheep (a Ruminant).—Therefore the foot of the sheep is evidence that he belongs to the same Order as the hog-for be the differences between the foot of the sheep and the hog what they may, the differences between that of the hog and the elephant are much greater. Mutatis mutandis--this is precisely in his own terms, Mr. Huxley's plea for the gorilla, and this he thinks is all that his argument requires him to show in order to prove his unity with man! Such an argument, in the way that it is presented by Mr. Huxley, would be illogical, as well as unscientific, if it were used simply to determine a question of correct classification ; but applied, as it is by him, to establish man's unity with the * Pachy dermata (thick-skinned); an order which comprises the elephant, rhinoceros, and the like animals, and also includes the hog and the horse. brutes in regard to origin and nature,—it is not only worthless but absurd. But Mr. Huxley thinks that argument is not necessary to prove that the terminal division of the gorilla's fore limb is a hand according to the human standard. He boldly asserts, "that no one has ever doubted its being a true hand." In flat contradiction to this bold assertion we cannot do better than quote the opinion of M. Gratiolet,* a French anatomist, whose scientific authority cannot be questioned by Mr. Huxley, since he frequently cites it in opposition to Professor Owen, in his "History of the Controversy respecting the Cerebral Structure of Man and the Apes." According to Gratiolet there are "Profound and really typical differences between man and the most elevated apes. In the latter, the thumb is bent by an oblique division of the common tendon of the muscle, which moves the other fingers, and therefore is not free. This type is realized in the gorilla and chimpanzee, but the small tendon which moves the thumb is in these reduced to a tendinous thread, which exerts no action, for its action is lost in the synovial folds of the tendons, which bend the other fingers, and it abuts on no muscle; the thumb therefore in these apes is wonderfully enfeebled. In none of them is there a trace of the large independent muscle which gives movement to the human thumb. Far from becoming more strongly developed, the member so characteristic of the human hand, seems in the most elevated apes, the orangs, to incline to a complete annihilation. These apes, therefore, have nothing in the organization of their hand which indicates a passage into the human form, and I insist, in my memoir, on the profound differences revealed by the study of the movements in hands formed to accomplish objects of a totally distinct order. Besides, it is especially in the ape, in appearance most like man, the Indian orang, that the hands and the feet present the most striking degradations. This paradox-this default in the parallelism in man and the large apes, in the development of correlative organs, such as the brain and the hand, shows absolutely that other harmonies, and other destinies, are here in question." In a discourse delivered at one of the free Scientific Soirees of the Sorbonne, M. Gratiolet says— "The hand of an ape is but a prehensile hook. Is the liberty of the thumb, which is wanting in the small apes, present in the anthropoids? Does the tendon which moves it, abutting on a distinct muscle, permit it to move more freely? Far from it,-this tendon is lost, and the * See the "London Reader" for 1864, Nos. 66 and 87. prove that man is in the self same Order as the gorilla, and has the self same origin and nature. It stands thus: Because the anterior claws of the marmoset (which is called a quadruman) differ more widely from the fore-paws of a gorilla (which is also called a quadruman) than these do from the hands of man (who is not a quadruman);therefore, the differences of the human hand, "be they what they may," are not fundamental nor distinctive! Hence man must take his place in the same Order as the gorilla and marmoset!! Consequently, the unity of origin and nature of man and the gorilla follows as a necessary corollary ! ! ! In other words, because certain differences in the organs of two animals which happen to be placed in the same Order, (one at the head and the other at the tail) are greater than those which are presented by similar organs of a third animal which is not in that Order-therefore, this latter animal must be ranked in the same Order as the other two, let the differences of these organs, as well as other differences, be what they may-and also be considered identical in nature. Mr. Huxley might just as well argue that, because the five-digited, not horny-hoofed foot of the elephant (a Pachyderm *) differs more widely from the single-cleft horny-hoofed foot of the hog (also a Pachyderm) than this last does from the single-cleft horny-hoofed foot of the sheep (a Ruminant).—Therefore the foot of the sheep is evidence that he belongs to the same Order as the hog-for be the differences between the foot of the sheep and the hog what they may, the differences between that of the hog and the elephant are much greater. Mutatis mutandis-this is precisely in his own terms, Mr. Huxley's plea for the gorilla, and this he thinks is all that his argument requires him to show in order to prove his unity with man! Such an argument, in the way that it is presented by Mr. Huxley, would be illogical, as well as unscientific, if it were used simply to determine a question of correct classification; but applied, as it is by him, to establish man's unity with the * Pachy dermata (thick-skinned); an order which comprises the elephant, rhinoceros, and the like animals, and also includes the hog and the horse. brutes in regard to origin and nature,-it is not only worthless but absurd. But Mr. Huxley thinks that argument is not necessary to prove that the terminal division of the gorilla's fore limb is a hand according to the human standard. He boldly asserts, "that no one has ever doubted its being a true hand." In flat contradiction to this bold assertion we cannot do better than quote the opinion of M. Gratiolet,* a French anatomist, whose scientific authority cannot be questioned by Mr. Huxley, since he frequently cites it in opposition to Professor Owen, in his History of the Controversy respecting the Cerebral Structure of Man and the Apes." 66 According to Gratiolet there are "Profound and really typical differences between man and the most elevated apes. In the latter, the thumb is bent by an oblique division of the common tendon of the muscle, which moves the other fingers, and therefore is not free. This type is realized in the gorilla and chimpanzee, but the small tendon which moves the thumb is in these reduced to a tendinous thread, which exerts no action, for its action is lost in the synovial folds of the tendons, which bend the other fingers, and it abuts on no muscle; the thumb therefore in these apes is wonderfully enfeebled. In none of them is there a trace of the large independent muscle which gives movement to the human thumb. Far from becoming more strongly developed, the member so characteristic of the human hand, seems in the most elevated apes, the orangs, to incline to a complete annihilation. These apes, therefore, have nothing in the organization of their hand which indicates a passage into the human form, and I insist, in my memoir, on the profound differences revealed by the study of the movements in hands formed to accomplish objects of a totally distinct order. Besides, it is especially in the ape, in appearance most like man, the Indian orang, that the hands and the feet present the most striking degradations. This paradox-this default in the parallelism in man and the large apes, in the development of correlative organs, such as the brain and the hand, shows absolutely that other harmonies, and other destinies, are here in question." In a discourse delivered at one of the free Scientific Soirees of the Sorbonne, M. Gratiolet says "The hand of an ape is but a prehensile hook. Is the liberty of the thumb, which is wanting in the small apes, present in the anthropoids? Does the tendon which moves it, abutting on a distinct muscle, permit it to move more freely? Far from it,-this tendon is lost, and the * See the "London Reader" for 1864, Nos. 66 and 87. force of the thumb disappears. The organ, instead of being perfected, is degraded; scarcely can the long hooked fingers, when bent, touch one by one the unguial extremity of the thumb; the nail which terminates them is short, deformed, inflexible; it (the hand) is already a claw." He goes on to show that it is not adapted to sense or touch, or to the acquisition of intellectual ideas,—but to the cylindrical boughs of a tree, from its curving and hook-like shape. Besides, this hand is the habitual organ of a quadrupedal motion, and its true resting place is not the ground, but trees. The hand is free only when the animal is at rest. He then remarks: "What a difference is there in the hand of man! The thumb becomes larger; it acquires a prodigious force and a freedom almost without bounds. Its tactile ball opposes itself with complete independence, simultaneously, or turn by turn, to those of all the other fingers. These, covered at their extremities with elastic nails, realize all the conditions of an organ proper to measure the intensity of pressure. The palm of the hand of an ape can only apply itself to a cylinder; that of the human hand is able to hollow itself into a longitudinal gutter, or to fashion itself into a cup, in such a manner that it can apply itself to spherical surfaces. From a simple prehensile organ it becomes a measuring instrument;-from a hook it becomes a compass (an expression used by Blainville), and the compass presupposes the geometrician. Elle saisissait jusque là le sol ou l'aliment; desormais, passez moi le mot, elle pourra saisir aussi des idées." Mr. Huxley concludes his essay by a critical examination of the Brain, which, he thinks, illustrates the truth of his proposition more clearly than either the Hand or Foot, and "enforces the same conclusion in a still more striking manner." In comparing the Simian brain with the human, he drops the Gorilla, and very properly takes the Chimpanzee and the Ourang, as the highest exemplars. We are surprised that he had not, from the first, recognized these animals as the most elevated of the Ape family, instead of the Gorilla. Apart from the statements of our countrymen, Dr. Savage and Mr. Ford, published in 1847 and 1852, little was known of this brute till Mr. Du Chaillu brought to this country his interesting collection. Those who have seen his skeletons and stuffed specimens of the Gorilla, will remember the exceedingly brutal aspect of this animal, which accords well with Du Chaillu's |