HUXLEY ON THE RELATIONS OF MAX TO THE LOWER ANIMALS. 69 



strong terms by Professor Owen, that his words may form a fitting cli- 

 max to these introductory sentences. 



" Not being able to appreciate or conceive of the distinction between the psychical 

 phenomena of a chimpanzee and of a Boschisman, or of an Aztec, with arrested brain- 

 growth, as being of a nature so essential as to preclude a comparison between them, or as 

 being other than a difference of degree, I cannot shut my eyes to the significance of that 

 all-pervading similitude of structure — every tooth, eveiy bone, strictly homologous — 

 which makes the determination of the difference between Homo and Pithecus the anato- 

 mist's difficulty."* 



That there are a great number of points of similarity between our- 

 selves and the lower animals, then, appears to be clearly admitted on 

 all hands. It is, further, universally allowed that the Yertebrata resemble 

 man more nearly than do any invertebrates ; that among vertebrates the 

 Mammalia, and of these the Quadrumana, approach him most closely. 

 Lastly, I am aware of no dissentient voice to the proposition, that in 

 the whole, the genera Troglodytes, Pithecus, and Hylolates, make the 

 closest approximation to the human structure. 



The approximation is admitted unanimously ; but unanimity ceases 

 the moment one asks what is the value of that approximation, if ex- 

 pressed in the terms by w r hich the relations of the lower animals one to 

 another are signified. Linnaeus was content to rank man and the apes 

 in the same order, Primates, ranging in terms of zoological equality, 

 the genera, Homo, Sima, Lemur, and Vespertilio. Among more mo- 

 dern zoologists of eminence, Schreber, Goldfuss, Gray, and Myth, have 

 followed Linnseus, in being unable to see the necessity of distinguishing 

 man ordinally from the apes. 



Blumenbach, and after him, Cuvier, conceived that the possession of 

 two hands, instead of four, taken together with other distinctive charac- 

 ters of man, was a sufficient ground for the distinction of the human 

 family as a distinct order — Bi-mana. 



Professor Owen goes a step further, and raises Homo into a sub- 

 class, " Archencephala" because "his psychological powers, in associa- 

 tion with his extraordinarily developed brain, entitle the group which 

 he represents to equivalent rank with the other primary divisions of 

 the class Mammalia, founded on cerebral characters."! 



M. TerresJ vindicates the dignity of man still more strongly, by de- 

 manding for the human family the rank of a kingdom equal to the Ani- 



* Prof. Owen on the Characters, &c, of the Class Mammalia, " Journal of the Pro- 

 ceedings of the Linnasan Society of London," vol. ii., No. 5, 1857, p. 20, note. It is to 

 be regretted that this note is omitted in the " Essay on the Classification of the Mamma- 

 lia," which is otherwise nearly a reprint of this paper. I cannot go so far, however, as to 

 say, with Prof. Owen, that the determination of the difference between Homo and Pithe- 

 cus is the 'anatomist's difficulty.' 



f Professor Owen on the Characters, &c, of the Class Mammalia, 1. c, p. 33. 



% L'homme ne forme ni une espece ni une genre comparable aux Primates. L'homme 

 a lui seul constitue un regne a part — le Regne humain." — Resume des Lecons sur 

 TEnibiyologie Anthropologique, Comptes Rendus, 1851. 



