143 
an inappreciable advance in type; what must have been 
the length of period during which he was “getting upon 
his hind legs,” what the period neccessary to elapse whilst 
protoplasm was developing into the ‘arboreal ancestor.’ 
Was this ancestor quadrumanous ? 
Darwin’s ‘Arboreal Ancestor’ also is by no means 
generally admitted as a fact, as Parker gives out; or even 
as an hypothesis: Hartmann (himself an Evolutionist) says 
in his treatise on the (so called) Anthropoid Apes, “ Zhzs 
supposed progenitor of our race ts necessarily completely 
hypothetical, and all the attempts hitherto made to cou- 
struct even a doubtful representation of tts characteristics 
are based upon the trifling play of fancy.” Of attempts 
made, Darwin’s is the most serious, and here a renowned 
Scientist stigmatises it as the “trifling play of fancy.” 
Yet Darwin’s theory has been accepted even by Students! 
Hartmann and Huxley are agreed in allying the 
Gorilla, the Orang, and the long-armed Gibbons more 
closely with Man; than with the Apes Proper ; for this, 
Hartmann, relies upon the Comparative Anatomy of 
their several frames: to this end he discards the Quadru- 
manous Order (Four-handed ), denies the Apes to be Quad- 
rumana at all; and places Man, Gorilla, and Gibbons in 
the First Family of Mammalia together: and the Apes 
Proper, and Long-tailed Apes in the Second Family: to 
support this unnatural alliance he places the intelligence 
of the Apes among the Mammals as highest. But has 
he forgotten the Dog? 
In the interests of Evolution it is that the Quadru- 
mana are got ridof. But Evolution has been applied 
psychologically, as well as morphologically ; to the Mind, 
as well as to the Frames of the Creatures. 
But if Morphology shows the brain-pan and brain of 
the Ape to be closer to Man, than to Monkey ; how comes 
