Wl THE NEW EVOLUTION '^"^" 



follows that the man of that period was very different 

 from what we know as man today. Similarly, the 

 creatures representing the modern monkeys at that 

 time must have been very different from them. 



Therefore the common ancestor of the Primates 

 must have been a creature which we could not call 

 either man or monkey on the basis of the accepted 

 definitions of those terms, or of our current concepts 

 of the animal world. 



How it is possible for both man and the apes to be 

 descended from a common ancestor not resembling 

 either is made clear by the history of the greyhounds 

 and the bull-dogs. These two types of dogs are very 

 different from each other both in bodily form and in 

 mentality, yet they are descended from the same an- 

 cestor, a wolf, which does not resemble either. 



Unbroken continuity in descent from parent to 

 child does not necessarily imply a similar continuity 

 in bodily form or in mental attributes. This is well 

 illustrated by the bull-dogs, which suddenly appeared 

 as a rather broad mutation from another type of dog, 

 and by the hairless dogs which had a similarly abrupt 

 and sudden origin. 



So while the general and broader features of human 

 structure were inherited, in accordance with the 

 unbroken continuity of descent from parent to child, 

 from some as yet unknown ancestor common to all 

 the Primates — but not from an ape as we understand 

 that term — it is possible and indeed most reasonable 

 to assume that man, like the bull-dogs and the hair- 

 less dogs, arose through a rather broad mutation and 



[2-30] 



