674 THE LAST STEPS IN THE GENEALOGY OF MAN. 



sleuder rinjj^, whilst they are always closed among the i)riDiates. The 

 lachrymal boue is largely exterior or facial, whilst among the primates 

 it is intraorbital. Their dental types are various, whilst it is fixed 

 among the monkeys. The cerebelUim is uncovered among the lemurs, 

 and covered over among the primates. The uterus is bifid, contrary to 

 the assertion of H;eckel. Beside the pectoral mammiii, they have often 

 inguinal mammae They have never been observed to have breech 

 callosities or cheek pouches as among the monkeys of the Old World. 

 The pelvis and the ear are entirely different. 



Vogt concludes in these words : " In summing up, it follows from all 

 these facts that absolutely no relation exists between the prosimians 

 and the monkeys, and from the same, none with man. With the excep- 

 tion of the opposable thumb, which is found among the marsupials, the 

 lowest and most ancient of the mammals, the prosimians have not a 

 single anatomical character in common with the monkeys. It is derog- 

 atory to all principles of positive science to class the prosimians among 

 the probable ancestors of the human species." 



Are these objections really so weighty ? From a morphological point 

 of view, they are certainly important; but they do not oblige us to 

 throw out the lemurs from the order of the primates. None of these 

 divergent characters are in contradiction to the idea that they are but 

 the rough draft of a beginning of the primates. 



The characters drawn from the nails and the oi)posable thumbs out- 

 ranked the others at the time in determining the general idea involved 

 in the choice of the word primate. But man has the orbit open, or 

 closed, the angles of the uterus are prolonged more or less, the inter- 

 maxillary and symphisial sutures may or may not be united, he is not 

 the less man. The same is true for the monkeys. The adaptation of the 

 extremitiesjtwo, or four to the function of prehension, is the character- 

 istic trait of the primates. But is the inconvenience of admitting the 

 lemurs into the order of primatesof moment when it is made in the terms 

 of Huxley ? The lemurs are the last family of the order of primates and 

 are more remote from the other families than they are from each other. 

 The distance from the anthropoids to man is also very great, as shown 

 in the volume of the brain and the cranial characters flowing from it, 

 and nevertheless I range man among the primates. Strictly, they can 

 separate the lemurs and make a special order, so that the genealogical 

 attachment to the monkeys will not be so prejudicial, but that will com- 

 pel us to do the same with man. Vogt is inconsistent ; he retains the 

 word prosimians as synonymous with lemurs. 



Having tinishetl with the links which do or do not attach the lemurs 

 to the primates, it remains to speak of their relations with the other 

 neiohboring groups. I have sufficiently insisted on the relationship with 

 the marsupials and more particularly with the phalangers. The iu- 

 sectivores are next to be considered. 

 All authors from Cuvier to M. Vogt have noted the resemblance of 



