83 



a foot or as a hand. If, with Professor Huxley, we look merely at the bones 

 and muscles which are present and disregard their disposition, then, no doubt, 

 •we must conclude that the posterior extremity of the apes must be called a foot 

 and not a hand ; but, if with Blumenbach, Cuvier, Owen, and many others, we 

 regard the opposableness of the great toe, and the lengthening of the phalange 

 as points which constitute a hand, then, undoubtedly, the posterior extremity 

 of the ape is a hand and not a foot, and the old name of the order is correct. 

 This is the view taken by Prof. Humphrey, for he says :—" Taking therefore 

 this view of the matter, and finding that the modification of the terminal part 

 of the hind limb in the chimpanzee so clearly corresponds with that of the fore 

 limb, we can hardly refuse to the one the appellation which we give to the other. 

 If we call this a hand because its pollex is opposable and its digits long, we 

 have precisely the same reason for calling that a hand also ; and the application 

 of the term Quadrumanous to the animal is thus justified by reaJ anatomy, as 

 well as by external configuration. There is, I think, clearly no sufficient 

 anatomical objection to it," 



The Professor advocates the adoption of the term Chiropoda (hand-footed) 

 as a substitute for the term Quadrurmna, or four-handed. 



It would, I think, be a very suitable name for the order, only it is a 

 little too much like the name of the order which contains the bats, Cheiroptera, 

 wing-handed. 



Thus we see that some of the greatest anatomists, both past and present, 

 have thought proper to separate man from the apes, and make him into a 

 distinct order by himself, called Bimana, or two-handed ; and some indeed have 

 deemed him worthy of a distinct sub-class— (see Owen's Classification of 

 Mammalia)— while others, as Huxley, following Linnaeus, have placed him 

 along with the higher apes, under the designation of Primates. 



For my own part I prefer that arrangement which assigns to man a 

 separate order, aa his structural peculiarities appear to me sufficient to justify 

 such a classification, though not sufficient to justify the placing of man in a 

 separate sub-class. 



I would, however, decidedly express my opinion that, great as the struc- 

 tural pre-eminence of man may be over that of brutes, we must nevertheless 

 look for his superiority not in his physical but in his psychical endowments, 

 which reach their highest expression in those divine gifts of speech and improve- 

 able reason. 



I must now very briefiy notice two or three interesting points in zoology 

 recently brought forward j and, first, I would notice the 

 NEW CLASSIFICATION OF BIRDS PROPOSED BY PROF, HUXLEY. 

 This new arrangement is based upon the characters of the palate bones— 

 a somewhat obscure point to select as a main essential point of distinction, I 

 must confess, it appears to me. Prof. Huxley, however, says he has no prejudice 

 in favour of palatal characters, but that their importance had forced itself on 



