June, 1930 



EVOLUTION 



Page nine 



far in advance of the slothful, semi-arboreal, quad- 

 rupedal anthropoids. They had thus attained a 

 degree of physical and psychical advancement that 

 sundered theni irrevocabU' from their tropical cous- 

 ins. 



"The factors which evoked the thinking and plan- 

 ning powers of the anthropoid and . . . caused the 

 transformation from anthropoid to man, are to be 

 sought ... in steadily and continuously operating 

 environmental conditions which constantly and in- 

 creasingly demanded the operation of choice and 



Restoration of Taungs Man-Ape by Forestier 

 From Natural History 



cunning. Such an environment is certainly not to 

 he found in any land belt containing the easy 

 refuge of trees. . . . Just as for the expansion of 

 the brain so, for the evolution of a more erect pos- 

 ture, . . it was essential that a large territory should 

 be available to make it impossible to return to the 

 forest. In this way the anthro])oid group should 

 be committed over a countless number of years to 

 use their upper limbs for fight and their lower 

 limbs for flight. An environment of this type was 

 present, because of the barrier already mentioned, 

 from Cretaceous times onward in Southern Africa ; 

 and Southern Africa is the only country wliich has 

 elicited an anthropoid individual betraying features 



such as one might expect to result from the oper- 

 ation of these unremitting and compelling environ- 

 mental conditions." 



The scientific authorities are agreed that the 

 Taungs ape is really an ape, with distinct leanings 

 towards human kind. Thus Professor W. J. Sollas 

 states that "Australopithecus is doubtless generical- 

 ly distinct from all known Apes, and in those im- 

 jiortant characters by which it differs from them it 

 makes a nearer approach to the Hominidae" (man- 

 kind). Similarly, G. Elliot Smith states that "this 

 Ape, which like Man may have been emancipated 

 from the necessity of living in forests, seems to re- 

 veal definite evidence of nearer kinship with Man's 

 ancestors than any other Ape presents." Dr. Wil- 

 liam K. Gregory refers to it as "a young anthropoid 

 with an exceptionally well developed brain. While 

 it may be nearer to the chinpanzee than to man, its 

 brain, skull and teetli tend to bridge the gap be- 

 tween the highest apes and the lowest men." 



Unfortunately, there is much doubt as to the 

 geologic age of tlie remains, some arguing that they 

 could have been quite recent. But Dr. Dart, with 

 others who have gone over the ground carefully, 

 is fully convinced of its great age, perhaps old 

 enough to have figured in the man-ape ancestry of 

 mankind. 



They were associated with the remains of two 

 extinct species of baboons. As, for some time, life 

 has been more static in Africa than in the North 

 this probably means a respectable antiquity, per- 

 haps even suggesting Pliocene age. 



However, the scientists are by no means agreed 

 that Man originated in South Africa. To begin 

 with, the fossil ape-man of Java, typifying the 

 next upward stage in human development, was found 

 across the Indian Ocean more than five thousand 

 miles from South Africa. Furthermore, mankind 

 seems to have dispersed from central or southern 

 Asia, where open plains also abounded far back 

 into geologic times and where numerous fossil apes 

 (tliough of lesser brain volume) have been found. 

 The scientists are mentally torn between the two 

 continents, with much reason on each side. In 

 either case, both man-ape and ape-man probably 

 wandered widely, so that almost anywhere in these 

 parts of the world we may find new links in the 

 ancestry, perhaps even the clue to man's origin and 

 wanderings. At least the search is hopefulUy on. 



New Evidence on Close Relationsliip of Men and Monkeys 



Professor Hegner of Johns Hopliins 

 finds that protozoa parasites of mon- 

 lieys and men are the only ones capable 

 of living in the bodies of either ac- 

 cording to the April 12th issoie of 

 Science, which quotes him as follows: 



"In very few instances are species 

 of protozoa that live in one species of 

 animal capable of living in another 

 species of animal, no matter how close 

 the relationship. The situation as re- 



gards monkeys and men is strikingly 

 different. . . . There are a few pro- 

 tozoa that occur in man that do not 

 have representatives among monkeys 

 and a few in monkeys that have not 

 been reported from man, but most of 

 the human protozoa have representa- 

 tives in monkeys indistinguishable from 

 them. This is in such striking con- 

 trast to what we know to be true of 

 the protozoan parasites of other ani- 



mals, we must recognize a genetic 

 relationship between monkeys and 

 men. That is, the protozoan parasites 

 of monkeys and men have descended 

 from protozoa that lived in the an- 

 cestors of monkeys and men and that 

 had the SAME ancestors. Our studies 

 of these parasites of monkeys and men 

 add a type of evidence that makes it 

 even more certain that our remote 

 ancestors were arboreal monkeys." 



