Pace Four 



EVOLUTION 



March, 1928 



How Man Differs From The Ape 



By Bernhard J. Stern 

 II. PSYCHOLOGICALLY 



<< A RE apes and monkeys our poor relatives?"' asked 



*■• Doctor R. R. Marett, the English anthropologist 

 in a recent lecture. His answer: "I think myself that it 

 would be snobbery to deny it." 



It has been a common feature of such snobbery to glo- 

 rify man and his abilities and achievements at the ex- 

 pense of the anthropoids. Various unique abilities and 

 powers have been attributed to man that are also present 

 among our poor relatives. And when one reads Koeh- 

 ler"s The Mentality of Apes and Yerke's Almost Human 

 one comes to the conclusion that these relatives are not 

 as poor as we have thought them to be. 



For example one hears repeatedly that "man is the 

 only tool-using animal''. Anyone that knows anything 

 at all about the behavior of the apes will deny this. Put 

 some bananas beyond the reach of a chimpanzee and 

 have a stick in the vincinity and you will observe how 

 quickly the bananas will disappear in the stomach of the 

 animal. The ape will use a box, a pole, even the back of 

 a man to get some coveted bananas that are too high for 

 him to reach. He also uses straws and twigs for spoons 

 and for catching ants. 



"But," says the reader who has been raised in the con- 

 ceit that he alone can use tools, "Is not man the only 

 tool making animal?" Not even that is man's unique 

 ability. Koehler indicates effectively how the ape too 

 creates tools. The outstanding instance is that when an 

 ape broke off a branch of a bush and used it to obtain 

 his food. No more can we use that dramatic but hack- 

 neyed opening sentence of the legend of man "That 

 moment when our primitive forefather broke a brancli 

 from a tree and made it into a club he became human." 



There are wide psychological implications in the man- 

 ufacture of the tool described "above. It dispels another 



of the unique powers attributed to man — that of abstract 

 thinking. For to perceive tlie possibilities of a stick in 

 a bush is to distinguish between a part and a whole which 

 is an advanced type of abstract thought. And of course, 

 the use of tools of any sort implies purposeful thinking, 

 that is, directing behavior for a certain end. 



Memory is another of man's supposed attributes which 

 the ape is thought not to possess. But this too is in- 

 correct. Careful observation and experiment has proven 

 that the ape does remember and even associates uncon- 

 nected objects, as for example where a stick was put 

 twelve hours previously in order that he might get some 

 bananas outside his reach that are particularly tempting 

 to him at the moment. 



The greatest and most popular conceit of man in re- 

 gard to the apes is man's idea that the ape apes him. 

 Apes do not ape anything they do not understand or com- 

 prehend. When a man makes a fool of himself before 

 the ape's cage at the zoo, he is deceiving himself if he 

 thinks that the ape is performing any antics that he 

 would not do were the man not there. The acts which 

 were thought to be an imitation of man are performed 

 by apes who have never encountered a Homo Sap. 



What then is the distinguishing feature between man 

 and the ape? It is the fact that man has an articulate 

 language. The ape has this only in a very rudimentary 

 form. Learned recognized thirty-two sounds or elements 

 of speech relating to food, drink, to other animals and 

 persons. But man's well developed articulate language 

 which is itself a learned trait, has enabled him to trans- 

 mit and accumulate knowledge from generation to gen- 

 eration. Through it he has been able to build a culture 

 which has enabled him to transform his environment 

 and which in turn transforms him. 



"Is This Me?" 



By GicoRt-E A. DoRSEY 



SEX is biologic; it has a natural history — like the bones 

 of our body, or the cells of our brain. Civilization 

 is quite another affair — human history writ large. Man 

 can mould, change, alter, destroy civilization, but sex and 

 human nature are in the blood, part of our natural 

 inheritance. To understand ourselves and our civiliza- 

 tion, we must know that civilization has come to be what 

 it is because we are what we are. What are we? 



Man is not what he thought he was. His own dog? 

 bark at him. Like the old woman who woke up in the 

 market-place and found her petticoat cut off to her knees, 

 he asks: Is this me, or isn't it? And if not, who am I? 



Men and women make Man. The Psalmist exclaimed 

 in awe: "Lord, what is Man?" "Lord, what is Man not?" 

 asks Hewlett scornfully. Neither attitude gets us any- 

 where. Nor did our calm complacency of a few years 



ago. We even boasted of our power over Nature. We 

 did not know that it was loaded. That "power" burst — 

 filling our body with shrapnel, befogging our mind with 

 the fumes of poison gas. 



Reaction: nations demand new bombers; Man. neu' 

 remedies — the old ones have lost their kick. Both de- 

 mands are met: new explosives, new prescriptions. Some 

 would prescribe for human nature as if it were a dis- 

 ease, to be cured in six weeks with six bottles, or with 

 a new set of glands! 



Is that it? Is it Man's nature that is ailing? But 

 to cure it — six weeks? In 60,000 years, possibly. If 

 the past is any guide, Man can no more "cure" his nature 

 than he can pull himself up by his bootstraps. 



Perhaps Nature will cure him. Perhaps. But not 

 soon — Nature takes her time. She allowed the Elephant 



