GIG THE LAST STEPS IN THE GENEALOGY OP MAN. 



rather the iutellectual point of view, it is uot to be discussed for a 

 moment. 



The principal classifications of the primates are as follows: Cuvier: 

 Two groups — man and the monkeys — the latter, under the name of qnad- 

 rumana, divided into monkeys, makis, and oustitis, the first group em- 

 bracing those which are called the great monkeys or anthropoids.* 



Broca's latest way, which is but a variation of Liuuaeus's two groups: 

 Man and the united anthropoids; the monkeys, those of the Old World, 

 or pitheci, and those of the New World, or cebians. 



Huxley's last way: Three groups, man, th^ monkeys, and the lemurs. 

 The monkeys are divided into catarrhine, platyrrhiue, and arctopithe- 

 cine. The catarrhines are subdivided into authropomorphs and cyno- 

 morphs. 



Vogt, in his work entitled "Mammals:" First group, man, which we 

 place here for sake of completeness, but who is not treated of; second 

 group, the monkeys of the Old World, divided into the authropomorphs 

 without tails and monkeys with tails; third group, the monkeys of the 

 New World, divided into platyrrhines and arctopitheci ; fourth group, 

 the lemurs or pro simians. 



It follows therefore (with but the exception of Broca) that all agree 

 in uniting the great monkeys or anthropoids to the common monkeys 

 uuder the term monkeys or catarrhine monkeys, or monkeys of the Old 

 World, and that Huxley and Vogt (whom no one would suspect of 

 revolutionary theories, I was on the point of saying,) think as Cuvier. 

 Is Broca as isolated as I have affirmed? I mention here that Broca 

 never formulated his division as have the foregoing, but that it is the in- 

 contestable result of his teaching here, and especially of that of his last 

 years. This fact seemed so apparent that I was compelled to express 

 it in a table in my Elements of General Anthropology, appearing in 1885, 

 to make evident the resemblance of his classification to that of Linn.neus. 

 Herve and Hovelacque, who were in possession of notes taken at the 

 course of Broca, so understood it and have re-produced it with some ad- 

 ditions to complete it in their "Summary of Anthropology" [Precis 

 d'Anthropologie), appearing in 1887. Would Broca have put it into a 

 table rashly, as Herve and Hovelacque and I have done, specifying that 

 he treated only of physical man? I can not say. One phrase of his 

 memoir of 1870, on the order of primates (page 83), where he qualifies 

 the uniting of man and the anthropoids in the same group as extrava- 

 gant, bears out this idea. I imagine he would have said, " Certainly 

 this table is correct, but it is only one aspect of the question." 



* Cuvier divkled the (inaflriimana into three groups: The nionkeys or quadrumana 

 Avhich have four straight incisors iu each javr and tiat nails (nails properly so called) 

 on all the fingers; the makis or quadrumana, which have iu either jaw incisors in 

 number other tban four or of other shape and the nails Hat on all the fingers except 

 the little finger, armed with a pointed and turned-up uail (a claw), and the ouistitis 

 or doubtful quadrumana. tbout'h he ranges them iu the first group. TUo makis are 

 our lemura, 



