History of the World/History of the World (Bureau Development, Inc.)(1992).BIN/dp/0107/01070.txt

Text File | 1992-10-11 | 32KB | 497 lines

$Unique_ID{how01070}
$Pretitle{}
$Title{Descent Of Man, The
Chapter 6.1}
$Subtitle{}
$Author{Darwin, Charles}
$Affiliation{}
$Subject{footnote
points
monkeys
characters
species
apes
form
distinct
hair
structure}
$Date{1874}
$Log{}
Title:       Descent Of Man, The
Book:        Part I: The Descent Or Origin Of Man
Author:      Darwin, Charles
Date:        1874

Chapter 6.1

     Position of man in the animal series - The natural system genealogical -
Adaptive 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, firstly from his affinities and
secondly from his structure - Early androgynous condition of the vertebrata -
Conclusion.

     Even 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 believe were possessed
by his early progenitors. If the 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. ^321 Spiritual powers cannot be compared or classed by the
naturalist; 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 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. ^322 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.

[Footnote 321: Isidore Geoffroy St. Hilaire gives a detailed account of the
position assigned to man by various naturalists in their classifications:
"Hist. Nat. Gen.," tom. ii, 1859, pp. 170-189.]

[Footnote 322: 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,"
Feb. 1870, p. 682.]

     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
unsatisfactory.  This principle has indeed been tried with hymenopterous
insects; but when thus classed by their habits or instincts, the arrangement
proved thoroughly artificial. ^323 Classifications may, of course, be based on
any character whatever, as on size, color, or the element inhabited; but
naturalists have long felt a profound conviction that there is a natural
system.  This system, it is now generally admitted, must be, as far as
possible, genealogical in arrangement - that is, the co-descendants of the
same form must be kept together in one group, apart from the co-descendants of
any other form; but if the parent-forms are related, so will be their
descendants, and the two groups together will form a larger group.  The amount
of difference between the several groups - that is, the amount of modification
which each has undergone - is expressed by such terms as genera, families,
orders and classes.  As we have no record of the lines of descent, the
pedigree can be discovered only by observing the degrees of resemblance
between the beings which are to be classed.  For this object numerous points
of resemblance are of much more importance than the amount of similarity or
dissimilarity in a few points.  If two languages were found to resemble each
other in a multitude of words and points of construction, they would be
universally recognized as having sprung from a common source, notwithstanding
that they differed greatly in some few words or points of construction.  But
with organic beings the points of resemblance must not consist of adaptations
to similar habits of life; two animals may, for instance, have had their whole
frames modified for living in the water, and yet they will not be brought any
nearer to each other in the natural system.  Hence we can see how it is that
resemblances in several unimportant structures, in useless and rudimentary
organs, or not now functionally active, or in an embryological condition, are
by far the most serviceable for classification; for they can hardly be due to
adaptations within a late period; and thus they reveal the old lines of
descent or of true affinity.

[Footnote 323: Westwood, "Modern Class of Insects," vol. ii. 1840, p. 87.]

     We can further see why a great amount of modification in some one
character ought not to lead us to separate widely any two organisms.  A part
which already differs much from the same part in other allied forms has
already, according to the theory of evolution, varied much; consequently it
would (as long as the organism remained exposed to the same exciting
conditions) be liable to further variations of the same kind; and these, if
beneficial, would be preserved, and thus be continually augmented.  In many
cases the continued development of a part, for instance, of the beak of a
bird, or of the teeth of a mammal, would not aid the species in gaining its
food, or for any other object; but with man we can see no definite limit to
the continued development of the brain and mental faculties, as far as
advantage is concerned. Therefore in determining the position of man in the
natural or genealogical system the extreme development of his brain ought not
to out-weigh a multitude of resemblances in other less important or quite
unimportant points.

     The greater number of naturalists who have taken into consideration the
whole structure of man, including his mental faculties, have followed
Blumenbach and Cuvier, and have placed man in a separate order, under the
title of the Bimana, and therefore on an equality with the orders of the
Quadrumana, Carnivora, etc.  Recently many of our best naturalists have
recurred to the view first propounded by Linnaeus, so remarkable for his
sagacity, and have placed man in the same order with the Quadrumana, under the
title of the Primates.  The justice of this conclusion will be admitted; for
in the first place, we must bear in mind the comparative insignificance for
classification of the great development of the brain in man, and that the
strongly-marked differences between the skulls of man and the Quadrumana
(lately insisted upon by Bischoff, Aeby and others) apparently follow from
their differently developed brains.  In the second place, we must remember
that nearly all the other and more important differences between man and the
Quadrumana are manifestly adaptive in their nature, and relate chiefly to the
erect position of man; such as the structure of his hand, foot and pelvis, the
curvature of his spine, and the position of his head.  The family of seals
offers a good illustration of the small importance of adaptive characters for
classification.  These animals differ from all other Carnivora in the form of
their bodies and in the structure of their limbs, far more than does man from
the higher apes; yet in most systems, from that of Cuvier to the most recent
one by Mr. Flower, ^324 seals are ranked as a mere family in the order of the
Carnivora.  If man had not been his own classifier he would never have thought
of founding a separate order for his own reception.

[Footnote 324: "Proc. Zoolog. Soc.," 1863, p. 4.]

     It would be beyond my limits and quite beyond my knowledge even to name
the innumerable points of structure in which man agrees with the other
Primates.  Our great anatomist and philosopher, Prof. Huxley, has fully
discussed this subject, ^325 and concludes that man in all parts of his
organization differs less from the higher apes than these do from the lower
members of the same group.  Consequently there "is no justification for
placing man in a distinct order."

[Footnote 325: "Evidence as to Man's Place in Nature," 1863, p. 70, et
passim.]

     In an early part of this work I brought forward various facts, showing
how closely man agrees in constitution with the higher mammals; and this
agreement must depend on our close similarity in minute structure and chemical
composition.  I gave, as instances, our liability to the same diseases and to
the attacks of allied parasites; our tastes in common for the same stimulants,
and the similar effects produced by them, as well as by various drugs, and
other such facts.

     As small, unimportant points of resemblance between man and the
Quadrumana are not commonly noticed in systematic works, and as, when
numerous, they clearly reveal our relationship, I will specify a few such
points.  The relative position of our features is manifestly the same; and the
various emotions are displayed by nearly similar movements of the muscles and
skin, chiefly above the eyebrows and round the mouth.  Some few expressions
are, indeed, almost the same, as in the weeping of certain kinds of monkeys
and in the laughing noise made by others, during which the corners of the
mouth are drawn backward and the lower eye-lids wrinkled.  The external ears
are curiously alike.  In man the nose is much more prominent than that in most
monkeys; but we may trace the commencement of an aquiline curvature in the
nose of the Hoolock Gibbon; and this in the Semnopithecus nasica is carried to
a ridiculous extreme.

     The faces of many monkeys are ornamented with beards, whiskers, or
mustaches.  The hair on the head grows to a great length in some species of
Semnopithecus; ^326 and in the Bonnet monkey (Macacus radiatus) it radiates
from a point on the crown, with a parting down the middle.  It is commonly
said that the forehead gives to man his noble and intellectual appearance; but
the thick hair on the head of the Bonnet monkey terminates downward abruptly,
and is succeeded by hair so short and fine that at a little distance the
forehead, with the exception of the eyebrows, appears quite naked.  It has
been erroneously asserted that eyebrows are not present in any monkey.  In the
species just named the degree of nakedness of the forehead differs in
different individuals; and Eschricht ^327 states that in our children the
limit between the hairy scalp and the naked forehead is sometimes not well
defined; so that here we seem to have a trifling case of reversion to a
progenitor in whom the forehead had not as yet become quite naked.

[Footnote 326: Isid. Geoffroy, "Hist. Nat. Gen.," tom. ii, 1859, p. 217.]

[Footnote 327: "Ueber die Richtung der Haare," etc, Muller's "Archiv. fur
Anat. und Phys.," 1837, s. 51.]

     It is well known that the hair on our arms tends to converge from above
and below to a point at the elbow.  This curious arrangement, so unlike that
in most of the lower mammals, is common to the gorilla, chimpanzee, orang,
some species of Hylobates, and even to some few American monkeys.  But in
Hylobates agilis the hair on the forearm is directed downward or toward the
wrist in the ordinary manner; and in H. lar it is nearly erect, with only a
very slight forward inclination; so that in this latter species it is in a
transitional state.  It can hardly be doubted that with most mammals the
thickness of the hair on the back and its direction is adapted to throw off
the rain; even the transverse hairs on the fore legs of a dog may serve for
this end when he is coiled up asleep.  Mr. Wallace, who has carefully studed
the habits of the orang, remarks that the convergence of the hair toward the
elbow on the arms of the orang may be explained as serving to throw off the
rain, for this animal during rainy weather sits with its arms bent and with
the hands clasped round a branch or over its head.  According to Livingstone,
the gorilla also "sits in pelting rain with his hands over his head." ^328 If
the above explanation is correct, as seems probable, the direction of the hair
on our own arms offers a curious record of our former state; for no one
supposes that it is now of any use in throwing off the rain; nor in our
present erect condition is it properly directed for this purpose.

[Footnote 328: Quoted by Reade, "The African Sketch Book," vol. i, 1873, p.
152.]

     It would, however, be rash to trust too much to the principle of
adaptation in regard to the direction of the hair in man or his early
progenitors; for it is impossible to study the figures given by Eschricht of
the arrangement of the hair on the human foetus (this being the same as in the
adult) and not agree with this excellent observer that other and more complex
causes have intervened.  The points of convergence seem to stand in some
relation to those points in the embryo which are last closed in during
development.  There appears, also, to exist some relation between the
arrangement of the hair on the limbs and the course of the medullary arteries.
^329

[Footnote 329: On the hair in Hylobates, see "Nat. Hist. of Mammals," by C. L.
Martin, 1841, p. 415.  Also, Isid. Geoffroy on the American monkeys and other
kinds, "Hist. Nat. Gen.," vol. ii, 1859, pp. 216, 243, Eschricht, ibid, ss.
46, 55, 61.  Owen, "Anat. of Vertebrates," vol. iii, p. 619.  Wallace,
"Contributions to the Theory of Natural Selection," 1870, p. 344.]

     It must not be supposed that the resemblances between man and certain
apes in the above and in many other points - such as in having a naked
forehead, long tresses on the head, etc. - are all necessarily the result of
unbroken inheritance from a common progenitor, or of subsequent reversion.
Many of these resemblances are more probably due to analogous variation, which
follows, as I have elsewhere attempted to show, ^330 from co-descended
organisms having a similar constitution, and having been acted on by like
causes inducing similar modifications.  With respect to the similar direction
of the hair on the forearms of man and certain monkeys, as this character is
common to almost all the anthropomorphous apes, it may probably be attributed
to inheritance; but this is not certain, as some very distinct American
monkeys are thus characterized.

[Footnote 330: "Origin of Species," 5th edit., 1869, p. 194.  "The Variation
of Animals and Plants under Domestication," vol. ii, 1868, p. 348.]

     Although, as we have now seen, man has no just right to form a separate
Order for his own reception, he may perhaps claim a distinct sub-order or
family.  Prof. Huxley, in his last work, ^331 divides the Primates into three
sub-orders; namely, the Anthropidae with man alone, the Simiadae, including
monkeys of all kinds, and the Lemuridae with the diversified genera of lemurs.
As far as differences in certain important points of structure are concerned,
man may no doubt rightly claim the rank of a sub-order; and this rank is too
low, if we look chiefly to his mental faculties.  Nevertheless, from a
genealogical point of view it appears that this rank is too high, and that man
ought to form merely a family, or possibly even only a sub-family.  If we
imagine three lines of descent proceeding from a common stock, it is quite
conceivable that two of them might after the lapse of ages be so slightly
changed as still to remain as species of the same genus, while the third line
might become so greatly modified as to deserve to rank as a distinct
sub-family, family, or even order.  But in this case it is almost certain that
the third line would still retain through inheritance numerous small points of
resemblance with the other two.  Here, then, would occur the difficulty, at
present insoluble, how much weight we ought to assign in our classifications
to strongly-marked differences in some few points - that is, to the amount of
modification undergone, and how much to close resemblance in numerous
unimportant points, as indicating the lines of descent or genealogy.  To
attach much weight to the few but strong differences is the most obvious and
perhaps the safest course, though it appears more correct to pay great
attention to the many small resemblances, as giving a truly natural
classification.

[Footnote 331: "An Introduction to the Classification of Animals," 1869, p.
99.]

     In forming a judgment on this head with reference to man, we must glance
at the classification of the Simiadae.  This family is divided by almost all
naturalists into the Catarrhine group, or Old World monkeys, all of which are
characterized (as their name expresses) by the peculiar structure of their
nostrils, and by having four premolars in each jaw; and into the Platyrrhine
group or New World monkeys (including two very distinct sub-groups), all of
which are characterized by differently constructed nostrils and by having six
premolars in each jaw.  Some other small differences might be mentioned.  Now
man unquestionably belongs in his dentition, in the structure of his nostrils,
and some other respects, to the Catarrhine or Old World division; nor does he
resemble the Platyrrhines more closely than the Catarrhines in any characters,
excepting in a few of not much importance and apparently of an adaptive
nature.  It is therefore against all probability that some New World species
should have formerly varied and produced a man-lie creature, with all the
distinctive characters proper to the Old World division; losing at the same
time all its own distinctive characters.  There can, consequently, hardly be a
doubt that man is an off-shoot from the Old World Simian stem; and that under
a genealogical point of view he must be classed with the Catarrhine division.
^332

[Footnote 332: This is nearly the same classification as that provisionally
adopted by Mr. St. George Mivart ("Transact. Philosoph. Soc.," 1867, p. 300),
who, after separating the Lemuridae, divides the remainder of the Primates
into the Hominidae, the Simiadae which answer to the Catarrhines, the Cebidae,
and the Hapalidae - these two latter groups answering to the Platyrrhines.
Mr. Mivart still abides by the same view; see "Nature," 1871, p. 481.]

     The anthropomorphous apes, namely, the gorilla, chimpanzee, orang, and
hylobates, are by most naturalists separated from the other Old World monkeys,
as a distinct sub-group.  I am aware that Gratiolet, relying on the structure
of the brain, does not admit the existence of this sub-group, and no doubt it
is a broken one.  Thus the orang, as Mr. St. G. Mivart remarks, ^333 "is one
of the most peculiar and aberrant forms to be found in the order." The
remaining non-anthropomorphous Old World monkeys are again divided by some
naturalists into two or three smaller sub-groups; the genus Semnopithecus,
with its peculiar sacculated stomach, being the type of one such sub-group.
But it appears from M. Gaudry's wonderful discoveries in Attica that during
the Miocene period a form existed there which connected Semnopithecus and
Macacus; and this probably illustrates the manner in which the other and
higher groups were once blended together.

[Footnote 333: "Transact. Zoolog. Soc.," vol. vi, 1867, p. 214.]

     If the anthropomorphous apes be admitted to form a natural sub-group,
then as man agrees with them not only in all those characters which he
possesses in common with the whole Catarrhine group, but in other peculiar
characters, such as the absence of a tail and of callosities, and in general
appearance, we may infer that some ancient member of the anthropomorphous
sub-group gave birth to man.  It is not probable that, through the law of
analogous variation, a member of one of the other lower sub-groups should have
given rise to a man-like creature resembling the higher anthropomorphous apes
in so many respects.  No doubt man, in comparison with most of his allies, has
undergone an extraordinary amount of modification, chiefly in consequence of
the great development of his brain and his erect position; nevertheless, we
should bear in mind that he "is but one of several exceptional forms of
Primates." ^334

[Footnote 334: Mr. St. G. Mivart, "Transact. Phil. Soc.," 1867, p. 410.]

     Every naturalist who believes in the principle of evolution will grant
that the two main divisions of the Simiadae, namely, the Catarrhine and
Platyrrhine monkeys, with their sub-groups, have all proceeded from some one
extremely ancient progenitor.  The early descendants of this progenitor,
before they had diverged to any considerable extent from each other, would
still have formed a single natural group; but some of the species or incipient
genera would have already begun to indicate by their diverging characters the
future distinctive marks of the Catarrhine and Platyrrhine divisions.  Hence
the members of this supposed ancient group would not have been so uniform in
their dentition, or in the structure of their nostrils, as are the existing
Catarrhine monkeys in one way and the Platyrrhines in another way, but would
have resembled in this respect the allied Lemuridae, which differ greatly from
each other in the form of their muzzles, ^335 and to an extraordinary degree
in their dentition.

[Footnote 335: Messrs. Murie and Mivart on the Lemuroidea, "Transact. Zoolog.
Soc.," vol. vii, 1869, p. 5.]

     The Catarrhine and Platyrrhine monkeys agree in a multitude of
characters, as is shown by their unquestionably belonging to one and the same
order.  The many characters which they possess in common can hardly have been
independently acquired by so many distinct species; so that these characters
must have been inherited.  But a naturalist would undoubtedly have ranked as
an ape or a monkey, an ancient form which possessed many characters common to
the Catarrhine and Platyrrhine monkeys, other characters in an intermediate
condition, and some few, perhaps, distinct from those now found in either
group.  And as man from a genealogical point of view belongs to the Catarrhine
or Old World stock, we must conclude, however much the conclusion may revolt
our pride, that our early progenitors would have been properly thus
designated. ^336 But we must not fall into the error of supposing that the
early progenitor of the whole Simian stock, including man, was identical with,
or even closely resembled, any existing ape or monkey.

[Footnote 336: Hackel has come to this same conclusion.  See "Ueber die
Entstehung des Menschengeschlechts," in Virchow's "Sammlung.  gemein. wissen.
Vortrage," 1868, s. 61.  Also his "Naturliche Schopfungsgeschichte," 1868, in
which he gives in detail his views on the genealogy of man.]

     On the Birthplace and Antiquity of Man. - We are naturally led to
inquire, where was the birthplace of man at that stage of descent when our
progenitors diverged from the Catarrhine stock?  The fact that they belonged
to this stock clearly shows that they inhabitated the Old World; but not
Australia nor any oceanic island, as we may infer from the laws of
geographical distribution.  In each great region of the world the living
mammals are closely related to the extinct species of the same region.  It is,
therefore, probable that Africa was formerly inhabited by extinct apes closely
allied to the gorilla and chimpanzee; and as these two species are now man's
nearest allies, it is somewhat more probable that our early progenitors lived
on the African continent than elsewhere. But it is useless to speculate on
this subject; for two or three anthropomorphous apes, one the Dryopithecus
^337 of Lartet, nearly as large as a man, and closely allied to Hylobates,
existed in Europe during the Miocene age; and since so remote a period the
earth has certainly undergone many great revolutions, and there has been ample
time for migration on the largest scale.

[Footnote 337: Dr. C. Forsyth Major, "Sur les Singes Fossiles trouves en
Italie: "Soc. Ital. des Sc. Nat.," tom. xv, 1872.]

     At the period and place, whenever and wherever it was, when man first
lost his hairy covering, he probably inhabited a hot country; a circumstance
favorable for the frugiferous diet on which, judging from analogy, he
subsisted.  We are far from knowing how long ago it was when man first
diverged from the Catarrhine stock; but it may have occurred at an epoch as
remote as the Eocene period; for that the higher apes had diverged from the
lower apes as early as the Upper Miocene period is shown by the existence of
the Dryopithecus.  We are also quite ignorant at how rapid a rate organisms,
whether high or low in the scale, may be modified under favorable
circumstances; we know, however, that some have retained the same form during
an enormous lapse of time.  From what we see going on under domestication we
learn that some of the co-descendants of the same species may be not at all,
some a little, and some greatly changed, all within the same period.  Thus it
may have been with man, who has undergone a great amount of modification in
certain characters in comparison with the higher apes.

     The great break in the organic chain between man and his nearest allies,
which cannot be bridged over by any extinct or living species, has often been
advanced as a grave objection to the belief that man is descended from some
lower form; but this objection will not appear of much weight to those who,
from general reasons, believe in the general principle of evolution.  Breaks
often occur in all parts of the series, some being wide, sharp and defined,
other less so in various degrees; as between the orang and its nearest allies
- between the Tarsius and the other Lemuridae - between the elephant, and in a
more striking manner between the Ornithorhynchus or Echidna, and all other
mammals.  But these breaks depend merely on the number of related forms which
have become extinct.  At some future period, not very distant as measured by
centuries, the civilized races of man will almost certainly exterminate and
replace the savage races throughout the world.  At the same time the
anthropomorphous apes, as Prof. Schaaffhausen has remarked, ^338 will no doubt
be exterminated.  The break between man and his nearest allies will then be
wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilized state, as we may
hope, even than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as a baboon, instead of as
now between the negro or Australian and the gorilla.

[Footnote 338: "Anthropological Review," April, 1867, p. 236.]

     With respect to the absence of fossil remains serving to connect man with
his ape-like progenitors, no one will lay much stress on this fact who reads
Sir C. Lyell's discussion, ^339 where he shows that in all the vertebrate
classes the discovery of fossil remains has been a very slow and fortuitous
process.  Nor should it be forgotten that those regions which are the most
likely to afford remains connecting man with some extinct ape-like creature
have not as yet been searched by geologists.

[Footnote 339: "Elements of Geology," 1865, pp. 583-585.  "Antiquity of Man,
1863, p. 145.]