ZOOLOGY. 297 



brain ; the two morphological, the multifidity of the frontal lobes cor- 

 responding to the forehead, usually, popularly, and, as this analysis 

 shows, correctly, taken as a fair exponent of man's intelligence, and 

 the absence of the external perpendicular fissure. This had been 

 abundantly shown by Gratiolet. Mr. W. H. Flower, looking at the 

 subject solely in the anatomical -view and as a question of fact, stated 

 that the result of a considerable number of dissections of brains of 

 various monkeys was that the distinction between the brain of man 

 and monkeys did not lie in the posterior lobe or the hippocampus 

 minor, which parts were proportionately more largely developed in 

 many monkeys than in man, and that if these parts were used in the 

 classification of man and the monkeys the series would be, first, the 

 little South American marmosets ; then would follow the baboons, the 

 cercopithea, macaque ; then man must be placed, followed by the 

 anthropoid apes, the orang-outang, chimpanzee, and gorilla ; and last, 

 the American howling monkey. 



In reviewing the above discussion, the London Times uses the fol- 

 lowing language : We are firmly persuaded that these discussions, 

 interesting as they may be to physiologists, can never teach the rest 

 *of us anything which it concerns us to know. The possession by man 

 of certain distinctive attributes transcending the highest intelligence 



CJ fj ^^ 



of animals, as organic transcends inorganic life, is a fact beyond doubt 

 or qualification. The method by which he became possessed of these 

 attributes is a mystery, and must ever remain so. It is conceivable, 

 though improbable in the highest degree, that scientific research may 

 discover what has been presumptuously called " the missing link " 

 between the human skeleton and the skeleton of the highest class of 

 apes ; but what will have been gained by such a revelation ? Nothing, 

 except an evidence that the external form of two orders of beings dif- 

 fering in all that can constitute a difference of nature may approximate 

 more closely than has hitherto been supposed. The step from re- 

 semblance to filiation is one that can never be made legitimately, and, 

 if it could, the only problem that has more than a scientific interest 

 would remain unsolved. The history of the human race must begin 

 with the first creature endowed with a human soul, and no structural 

 affinity will ever justify us in acknowledging as man a being which 

 has lei't no traces of reasonable agency. Between the highest efforts 

 of instinct and the rudest manufactured implements which geologists 

 have detected in caves or gravel-beds, there is an interval which can- 

 not be bridged over. While we are what we are, and learn from his- 



C.5 ' 



tory and philology that no material change has passed over our mental 

 organization since language was used to express thought, we can dis- 

 pense with the assumption that our physical organization is unique. 

 Experience had already told us that we live under the same physical 

 conditions with other animals. Like them, we need air, sleep, and 

 food ; the constituent parts of our bodies and the mode of growth are 

 the same ; the processes of digestion and secretion, and the tendency to 

 disease, are common to us with them, and we share with them all the 

 senses and many of the affections. It is a small thing, then, to admit 

 the existence of other features of similarity such as osteology attests. 

 The recognition of these features is as old as Aristotle, and the use 

 now made of them comes too late to shake our faith in our -preten- 



