HUXLEY'S LIFE AND WORK. 343 



under the title of Ichthyopsida. At the same time he showed that the 

 Mammalia were not derived from the Sauropsida, but formed two 

 diverging lines springing from a common ancestor. And besides this 

 great generalization, says the Eoyal Society obituary notice, "the im- 

 portance of which, both from a classificatory and from an evolutional 

 point of view, needs no comment, there came out of the same researches 

 numerous lesser contributions to the advancement of morphological 

 knowledge, including, among others, an attempt, in many respects suc- 

 cessful, at a classification of birds." 



In conjunction with Tyndall, he communicated to the 'Philosophical 

 Transactions' a memoir on glaciers, and his interest in philosophical 

 geography was also shown in his popular treatise on physiography. 



But it would be impossible here to go through all his contributions to 

 science. The Royal Society Catalogue enumerates more than a hun- 

 dred, every one of which, in the words of Prof. S. Parker, "contains 

 some brilliant generalization, some new and fruitful way of looking at 

 the facts of science. The keenest morphological insight and inductive 

 power are everywhere apparent; but the imagination is always kept well 

 in hand, and there are none of those airy speculations — a liberal pound 

 of theory to a bare ounce of fact — by which so many reputations have 

 been made." Huxley never allowed his study of detail to prevent him 

 from taking a wide general view. 



I now come to his special work on Man. 



In the 'Origin of Species,' Darwin did not directly apply his views 

 to the case of Man. No doubt he assumed that the considerations which 

 applied to the rest of the animal kingdom must apply to Man also, and 

 I should have thought must have been clear to every one, had not Wal- 

 lace been in some respects, much to my surprise, of a different opinion. 

 At any rate, it required some courage to state this boldly, and much skill 

 and knowledge to state it clearly. 



He put it in a manner which was most conclusive, and showed, in 

 Virchow's words, "that in respect of substance and structure Man and 

 the lower animals are one. The fundamental correspondence of human 

 organization with that of animals is at present universally accepted." 



This, I think, is too sweeping a proposition. It may be true for Ger- 

 many, but it certainly is not true here. Many of our countrymen and 

 countrywomen not only do not accept, they do not even understand, 

 Darwin's theory. They seem to suppose him to have held that Man was 

 descended from one of the living Apes. This, of course, is not so. Man 

 is not descended from a Gorilla or an Orang-utang, but Man, the Gorilla, 

 the Orang-utang and other Anthropoid Apes are all descended from 

 some far-away ancestor. 



"A Pliocene Homo skeleton," Huxley said, "might analogically be 

 expected to differ no more from that of modern men than the (Eningen 



