S EEVIEWS. 



to the species) to 40" in the Chimpanzee, to less than 40" in the Gorilla, to about 35" in 

 the Orang. So that this last ape, this ' man of the woods,' whose pretended facial angle 

 of 63" or 64" (which it really possesses when young) led to its being regarded as the 

 highest of the apes, (such as it really is in virtue of its cerebral characters), here 

 occui)ies one of the lowest places. It is almost on the same level as the Theropiihecus, 

 and has below it only the Cytiopithecus and the Cijnoceplialus ; those dogheadt d apes, 

 as the ancients called them ; a name justified by "their facial angle of 30", that of a 

 true Carnivore and almost that of a Rodent. Whence it follows that, in this respect, 

 there is a passage, by almost insensible gradations, from the most civilized and orthog- 

 nathous European, not only to the most prognathous negro, but to those very apes, 

 which have the most prominent muzzles. A contmuous series of variations, where 

 one is astounded to see Man come in contact with the brute, considering how great is 

 the distance from the highest apes to the lowest, and how great the interval between 

 ourselves and the other races of mankind. From Saimiri to Cijnoceplialus there is 

 35" difference, from the European to the Makoia 16" to 18", and almost 21" if we select 

 one of those beautiful Caucasian skulls of 85" measured by Camper and by Cuvicr," 



In the same manner M. St. Hilaire shows that, in the develop- 

 ment of the forehead and that of the chin, in the position of the 

 occipital foramen, and in the obliteration of the intermaxillary- 

 suture, the skull of man is connected with that of the apes, which 

 differ most widely from him, by intermediate gradations, while, on 

 the other hand, he fully details the important characters in which 

 Man and the higher apes agree. Our space, however, allows us to 

 follow oiu' author no further in this argument, especially as it still 

 remains our duty to explain why, when he has taken these pains to 

 demonstrate that Man, regarded structurally, forms only a ftimily of 

 the Primates, M. St. Hilaire nevertheless conceives himself bound to 

 regard Man as a Idngdom, equal in distinctness to Plantse or Animaha. 

 And here we confess ourselves somewhat at a loss ; for while the 

 reasonings we have detailed above are fuU (occupying as we have 

 said sixty pages) clear in thought, and precise in expression, the 

 argument leading to the latter conclusion is of the briefest, taking 

 up not more than six pages of writing, whose style is as diffuse as 

 its intellectual texture is loose. 



Looked at structurally, M. St. Hilaire repeats, in this section, 

 Man can constitute mei'ely a family of the Primates, of that order of 

 mammals in which the apes and lemurs form the other families. 

 But then, he adds, the kingdoms of nature are distinguished from one 

 one another by their faculties and not by their structure. 



" It is by its peculiar faculties, which cease only when animality ends, and only 

 by them, that the annual differs essentially from the plant and rises so high above 

 it as to constitute a distinct kingdom: similarly it is by his faculties, so incom- 

 parably higher, by the addition oi intiilectnal and moral faculties to the J'acnlf// of 

 seiimtion and the J'acidt// of motion, that Man in his turn separates himself from the 

 animal kingdom and constitutes above it, the supreme division of natm-e, the Human 

 Kingdom." p. 260. 



It seems almost incredible that a man of science should base 

 SI ch a conclusion upon such an argument as this, which must obviously 

 be at once invalidated by the admission, that animals possess even a 

 trace of intellect, or a rudiment of moral ikculty. But the comparison 



