86 A. STKA11LTXG A^TNrV'ERSA-RY ADDRESS: 



animal has ever trodden tliis eartli. And I venture here to enter 

 a protest against tlie tendency to underrate this remarkable animal 

 which appears to prevail at the present day. In popular accep- 

 tation the proper study of mankind seems now to be any other 

 animal, from a microbe to a mammoth, rather than our own 

 species. So far is this really the case, that the British Associa- 

 tion has recently sent round memoranda, begging societies of this 

 sort not to neglect among their observations to record facts relating 

 to ethnology and other topics pertaining to humanity. We have in 

 consequence just added that word to our schedule of subjects for 

 consideration. Then, again, we constantly hear injurious comparisons 

 instituted between ourselves and the lower animals. Probably we 

 have all suffered much in our youth from those hateful insects, 

 the industrious ant and the busy bee ; but even now we frequently 

 get the exclamation, "Ah, which of ics could do that?" from 

 people of cheap, second-hand, philosophical proclivities, when they 

 see anything on the part of an animal which strikes them as clever 

 or ingenious, — the very people who, as a rule, scorniuUy repudiate 

 the idea that we are of one flesh and blood with the rest of 

 creation. I^o one can delight in the marvels of animated nature 

 more than I do, for I have lived in close and constant companion- 

 ship with animals of various species all my life ; but I confess that 

 it does make me indignant when I hear them lauded at the expense 

 of that crown and miracle of evolution, myself. For, as I shall 

 hope to point out presently, man is far and away the best all- 

 round animal, even from a purely physical aspect. 



I^ow, where shall we put man in the zoological scale ? Man, 

 to whom the question is necessarily addressed, usually replies : At 

 the top, as high up as possible ; not like the little boy at school, 

 who, on being asked which was the highest animal, answered that 

 it was a giraffe ! It is very doubtful, though, whether there are 

 any stnictural gi'ounds sufficiently valid to justify this position. 

 If we agree with one of the schools of system atists of the present 

 day, that specialization of structure should be taken as the criterion 

 of altitude of type, then man, though undoubtedly ranking very 

 high in this respect, must yield precedence to the bat and the 

 whale, both of whom have become more modified than he in adap- 

 tation to their environment. On the other hand, if we throw in 

 our lot with another school who hold that specialization should 

 be regarded rather as evidence of degradation, as evincing de- 

 parture from perfection of type, then, although not quite at the 

 bottom, man would have to take a very low seat indeed. I have 

 attempted to demonstrate in a previous lecture that there is no 



I 



