2 DANIEL WILSON ON THE RIGHT 
cally and physiologically the fore-limb of the ape, like the hand of man, is the prehensile 
organ par excellence ; while the primary function of the hind-limb is locomotion. 
There are, unquestionably, traces of prehensile capacity in the human foot ; and even 
of remarkable adaptability to certain functions of the hand. Well-known cases have 
occurred, of persons born without hands, or early deprived of them, learning to use their 
feet in many delicate operations, including not only the employment of pen and pencil, 
but the use of scissors, with a facility which still more strikingly indicates the separate 
action of the great toe, and its thumb-like apposition to the others. In 1882 I witnessed, 
in the Museum at Antwerp, an artist without arms, who skilfully used his brushes with 
his right foot. He employed it with great ease, arranging his materials, opening his box 
of colours, and “handling” his brush, seemingly with a dexterity fully equal to that of 
his more favoured rivals. At an earlier date, during a visit to Boston, I had an opportunity 
of observing a woman, labouring under similar disadvantages, execute elaborate pieces 
of scissor-work, and write not only with neatness, but with great rapidity. Nevertheless 
the human foot, in its perfect natural development, is not a hand. The small size of the 
toes, as compared with the fingers, and the position and movements of the great toe, alike 
point to diverse functions and a greatly more limited range of action. But the latent 
capacity of the system of muscles of the foot—scarcely less elaborate than that of the hand, 
—is obscured to us by the rigid restraints of the modern shoe. The power of voluntary 

action in the toes manifests itself not only in cases where early mutilation, or malforma- 
tion at birth, compels the substitution of the foot for the hand; but among savages, where 
the unshackled foot is in constant use in climbing, and feeling its way through brake 
and jungle, the free use of the toes, and the power of separating the great toe from the 
others, are retained, in the same way as may be seen in the involuntary movements of 
a healthy child. A brief experience of the soft, yielding deerskin moccasin of the Red 
Indian, in place of the rigid shoe, restores even to the unpractised foot of the whitemana 
freedom of action in the toes, a discriminating sense of touch, and a capacity for grasping 
rock or tree in walking or climbing, of which he has had no previous conception. The 
Australian picks up his spear with the naked foot; and the moccasin of the American 
Indian scarcely diminishes the like capacity to take hold of a stick or stone. The Hindu 
tailor, in like manner, sits on the ground holding the cloth tightly stretched with his 
toes, while both hands are engaged in the work of the needle. 
Such facts justify the biologist in regarding this element of structural difference 
between man and the apes as inadequate for the determination of a specific zoological classi- 
fication. Nevertheless man still stands apart as the tool-maker, the tool-user, the manipu- 
lator. A comparison between the fore and hind limbs of the Chimpanzee, or other ape, 
leaves the observer in doubt whether to name both alike hands or feet, both being loco- 
motive as well as prehensile organs; whereas the difference between the hand and foot 
of man is obvious, and points to essentially diverse functions. The short, weak thumb, 
the long, nearly uniform fingers, and the inferior play of the wrist, in the monkey, are in 
no degree to be regarded as defects. They are advantageous to the tree-climber, and 
pertain to its hand as an organ of locomotion ; whereas the absence of such qualities in 
the human hand secures its permanent delicacy of touch, and its general adaptation for 
all manipulative purposes. 
The human hand is thus eminently adapted to be the instrument for carrying out the 

