82 



the chimpanzee, Professor Humphrey found that the muscles of the thigh 

 were inserted much further down the tibia or leg boue than in man, and that 

 they did not allow the leg to be perfectly straight upon the thigh without 

 using some violence, showing clearly that the legs of monkeys were not intended 

 to be perfectly straight. 



Foot. — I must now come to the question of the foot, perhaps the most 

 important point in the whole strxicture for the object of comparison, and the 

 one which the older naturalists thought fit to take as the characteristic of 

 the whole order, calling it quadrumana, or four-handed. 



In the foot, as in most other parts of the body, it is by the disposition 

 of the parts and not by any new part that the human foot differs materially 

 from the foot of the apes. 



And, first, I must briefly state what are the leading differences between 

 a hand and a foot, taking as our standard the human hand and foot. They 

 are these. In the foot there are seven tarsal bones, in the hand there are 

 eight carpal bones, in the foot there are short flexor and extensor muscles 

 of the toes, and a muscle called the peronoeus longus, all which muscles are 

 absent in the hand; besides these differences the big toe or hallux is in man 

 parallel with the other toes, whereas the thumb or pollex is placed at an angle 

 with the fingers, thereby becoming opposable. We must now take the foot of 

 the gorilla or chimpanzee and compare it with the hand and foot of man, and 

 see to which member it bears the most resemblance. As far as bones and 

 muscles go the foot of the ape resembles the foot of man and not his hand ; 

 that is, it has seven tarsal bones, the short flexor and exten«or muscles, and 

 the peronceus longus, but the hallux or big toe is not set upon the tarsal bones 

 in the same level or the same direction as the other toes ; it has much greater 

 mobOity than the hallux of man. which is prevented from free movement 

 outwards by the other toes and inwards by a transverse ligament which (accord- 

 ing to Humphrey) is absent in the ape. This is a most important diversity of 

 arrangement, as it makes the huUux of the apes as much opposable as the 

 pollex of man, and clearly points out that the posterior extremities of the apes 

 were intended for grasping boughs of trees and other things, and not solely 

 intended, as in man, for a bipedal gait. This fact has a high teleological signi- 

 fication. Other diversities exist; as, for instance, the heel bone or os-calcis in 

 the apes not being placed directly under the astragalus, and therefore not 

 bearing the weight of the body so directly as in man ; it does, in fact, approach 

 the condition in which it is found in the lower mammals, where it is merely 

 a lever and point of attachment of the muscles. 



The other bones of the tarsus too, in the apes are not so much flattened 

 nor so strong as in man, and are formed more for rotation than for bearing 

 heavy weight. Other differences exist between the foot of man and the apes, 

 but I think I have touclied upon the most important. 



ViKWS TAKEN BY ANATOMISTS. — It remains now, therefore, to decide from 

 the evidence above, whether we should class the posterior member of the apes as 



