THE LAST STEPS IN THE GENEALOGY OF MAN. i)Si 



potaiuiis, belonging to the artiodaetyl branch of the ungulates. In 

 review we have genera of ungnlatex, belonging to the same stock as the 

 snides or very close to it, which have marked resembhinces to the mon- 

 keys; they are the cebochoerus (or pig monkey) of Gervais, the acoth- 

 erulam and the hyracotherium of Owen. It is worthy of remark here 

 that the ungulates, going on the one hand to the lemurs and on the 

 other to the nu)nkeys, are all eocene, whilst the only real monkey lead- 

 ing to the ungulates is miocene. it is also worthy of remark that in 

 his general proof of the relation of the preceding species with the 

 ungulates, Gaudry did not separate the lemurs from the monkeys, as if 

 from a paleontological stand-point; in the ancient species the two 

 were tangled together. 



Assuredly this is a slender basis upon which to establish the deriva- 

 tion of monkeys and ulteriorlj" of man from the ungulates. For all that, 

 the hypothesis has made some stir. Vogt seems disi)Osed to accept it, 

 and Schmidt concludes that chapter in his book with these words: "The 

 monkeys have distinctly a double origin; the American branch has 

 had ancestors in the form of insectivores, the Euro-Asiatic branch, 

 including the anthropomorphs, ancestors in the form of pachyderms. 

 We are thus brought very close to the question of the pachydermal 

 origin of our primitive ancestors." 



Observe thiit the catarrhine monkeys are dispossessed of their affilia- 

 tion with the lemurs. I declare that I can not bring myself to accept the 

 idea. The lemurs are, according to my belief, the lowest of the prim- 

 ates, of the quadrumana, and as such, those which bear every prob- 

 ability of having produced the others. 



I will indulge in a single reflection. I am an anatomist, a craniologist, 

 and it is far from me to throw any doubt on the great value of the 

 smallest morphologic character; but I ask myself if really, underneath 

 the particulars which may show the conformation of the teeth, the fin- 

 gers, and the toes of the tarsus and carpus, back of the characters 

 that reflect the precise kinds of alimentation and the i)recise way of 

 locomotion, there is not something more general answering to the spe- 

 cial hai)its, to the course of life or habitat moreor less terrestrial, aquatic, 

 diurnal or nocturnal, that imprints on tlic make-up of the organism that 

 general appearance of relationshi[) that the naturalist perceives over 

 and above all those s[)ecial modes of adaptation that he studies with 

 so great care to find a testimony, an expressn)n, a formula for the sup- 

 pcu't of his thought, — of his vision, if I nniy so express myself. Clearly 

 a particular trait, a i)rogressive variation of form, reflects the higher 

 kind of influence to which I allude. The teeth, the condyle of the jaw 

 and its articular cavity, the temporal fossae give very exactly the diet 

 of the animal and consequently certain of its habits. The patiujium of 

 which we have seen the first traces among the marsni)ial petaurites 

 allows us to establish a series leading to the bats by way of the galeo- 

 pitheci. 1 have shown you that the genealogy of the perissodactyls, 



