686 THE LAST STEPS IN THE GENEALOGY OF MAN. 



all time j tbe two liemispberes have uot been uuitcd since the Miocene 

 at least, perbaps since tbe Eocene; tbe monkeys wbicb cannot live in 

 cold countries would be very wary of approaching Bering's Straits. 

 The monkeys are little modified then throughout tbe Old World where 

 they are more arboreal. Since the Miocene, one recognizes among them 

 types high as tbe laopithecus of America and thedryopithecns of Europe; 

 they have not evolved since. Theexaraple of tbe mesopitbecusot Gaudry 

 is tbe only one which we can cite in favor of any evolution whatever. 



Nevertheless Vogt speaks here of a tendency toward a superior or- 

 ganization like that of man, of a similarity that is produced in different 

 ways; the gorilla resembles man more in its liudjs, tbe orang in its 

 brain and the chimpanzee in its skull and teeth. " No fact," says he, 

 '' will permit us to admit of an unique line of evolution toward tbe hu- 

 man organization." Unique, perbaps ! but what if multiple '? For it 

 would always be a descent from monkeys. 



Passing then to tbe fossil species more particularly, Vogt insists on his 

 proposition that there has not operated "any evolution of tbe simian type 

 through tbe geologic periods;" that we can not "signalize any progress 

 of that type since the time of tbe Upper Miocene." With the exception 

 of one argument of his which I i-eservefor another place, that is all. 



Very well, I must say that I see nothing to lead me to that conclu- 

 sion. As I have shown just now that there is as much probability of an 

 evolution among monkeys as in any other zoological group. No series 

 of species leads, it is true, positively from any kind of monkey to any 

 kind of man. But in paleontology what they show as a series of sjiecies, 

 is usually but a series of characters. Now comj)arative anthropology 

 shows us a multitude of characters forming series, going from the 

 monkeys toman, by the way of or uot of the anthropoids. 



Vogt finishes with an argument which has a good deal of weight. 

 "Tbe infant monkey resembles man more than does tbe adult monkey, 

 age alone emphasizes their characteristic differences by the evolution of 

 the jaws, the cranial ridges etc." And he thus concludes: "From all 

 these facts follows the conclusion that man can not be put into direct 

 generic relation either with the existing monkeys or with any known 

 fossil monkeys, but that both (man and monkey) have risen from a 

 common stock of which the characters show" themselves in youth more 

 related to tbe stock than in the adult being." 



A jyriori, the latter argument of Vogt is very correct. Every-one has 

 remarked tbe contrast between the cranium of the young orang and the 

 adult orang, of the young gorilla and the adult gorilla. Its value rests 

 on tbe known principle of the parallelism of ontogeny and phytogeny 

 which may be expressed thus : The forms of tbe young subject re-produce 

 the forms that have existed among its ancestors and thus indicate their 

 relationship. In other words, the character in progress, or new, — that 

 which should relate a species to a following species, exists in the adult 

 at his highest degree, whilst tbe character wbicb belongs to the ances- 

 tors descends to tbe infant, though it disaj)pears in the adult; for ex- 



