830 THE POPULAR SCIENCE MONTHLY. 



eys with a dog's snout, of which immerous species inhabit the 

 most of Africa. 



The Old World monkeys are related on one side to the lemurs, 

 and on the other side to the ungulates. The former relation- 

 ship is clearly admitted by Prof. Haeckel and Mr. Cope. M. 

 Haeckel's argument, which is based chiefly on the conformation of 

 the placenta, does not carry a strong conviction. Mr. Cope's rests 

 chiefly on the conformation of the teeth, and is more solid. Mr. 

 Huxley does not say that the monkeys are descended from the 

 lemurs, but his descriptions suggest it. M. Vogt, as we have 

 seen, rejects this genealogy, as also does M. Schmidt. The rela- 

 tionship with the ungulates is admitted by M. Gaudry, and is a 

 consequence of the one that he has determined between the lemurs 

 and the ungulates. In general, the Adapts and the Aplelotlierium 

 establish the communication on the former side, the point of 

 junction being at the Eocene origin of the perissodactylic branch 

 of the ungulates. On the latter side we have only one genus still 

 known, the OreopUTiecus of Gervais, which in dentition resembles 

 the Chceropotamus, a genus of the SuidcB, or the artiodactylic 

 branch of the ungulates. In return, there are genera of the ungu- 

 lates belonging to the same stock of the Suidce, or one nearly allied 

 to it, which have marked resemblances with the monkeys. These 

 are the Ceboclicerus, or hog-monkey, of Gervais, the Acoiherulum, 

 and the Hyracotlieriuin of Owen. It is also to be remarked that 

 in his general demonstration of the relation of the preceding spe- 

 cies with the ungulates, M. Gaudry does not separate the lemurs 

 from the monkeys, as if, from the paleontological point of view — 

 that is, in the ancient species — the two were confounded. 



Assuredly this is a very slight basis on which to found a der- 

 ivation of the monkeys, and ultimately of man, from the ungu- 

 lates. Yet the hypothesis has been heard; M. Vogt seems dis- 

 posed to accept it, and M. Schmidt concludes a chapter in his 

 book with the words : " The monkeys have had a very distinct 

 double origin ; the American branch had ancestors of insectivor- 

 ous forms, and the Europo-Asiatic branch, including the anthro- 

 pomorphs, ancestors with pachydermatous forms. We are thus 

 near the question of the pachydermatic origin of our own primitive 

 ancestors.'* 



If this be so, the catarrhinian monkeys are dispossessed of 

 their filiation with the lemurs. I confess I can not make up my 

 mind to accept this idea. The lemurs are to me primates, quadru- 

 mana, the lowest of the order, and as such the ones which have 

 all the chances of having engendered the others. The theory of 

 the descent of man from the hog does not seduce me. 



I am an anatomist and craniologist, and will allow no one to 

 cast doubt on the importance which I attach to the smallest mor- 



