THE NEW EVOLUTION 



But if in the case of dogs we are always careful to 

 consider the mental differences as well as the structural 

 variations more or less peculiar to each of the several 

 breeds, why should we not admit that the habits of 

 all animals should be considered in connection with 

 their structure? Why should we be so careful as to 

 emphasize the terrier's peculiar propensity for dig- 

 ging, the spaniel's curious love for water and occa- 

 sional dexterity in catching fish, the stupidity and 

 ferocity of bull-dogs, and all the other traits char- 

 acteristic of the other breeds of dogs and then main- 

 tain that man in his relation to the apes must be con- 

 sidered solely on the basis of his structure? 



How can we acknowledge the importance of the 

 mental differences between the greyhounds and the 

 hounds, between both of these and collies, and be- 

 tween all three and bull-dogs, and then deny, or at 

 least minimize, the importance of the mental differ- 

 ences between the orangs and the chimpanzees, be- 

 tween both and the gorillas, and between all three 

 and man? 



To do this is to admit that the science of biology — 

 the science which deals with living things — has crys- 

 tallized into a narrow orthodoxy, a science of dead 

 remains, a sort of common meeting ground of geology, 

 chemistry and physics, a science with no bearing upon 

 those deeper problems which concern cosmic qualities 

 and values. 



If we regard the relationship of man to the world 

 in which he lives, and to the other forms of life with 

 which he lives, from the broader viewpoint of man 



[4] 



