at i: * in ian 4 
145 
‘ Arboreal Ancestor’ of Man and Monkey exposed the 
Whites of the Eye, there would occur now and again an 
instance of Reversion (like that claimed for the Horse 
‘page 138’), amongst those of its, or his descendants that 
have culminated in Apes: Iam not aware that such in- 
stance has ever been brought forward. If, on the other 
hand, the ‘ Arboreal Ancestor’ did mot expose the Whites 
of the eye, by the same principle of ‘Reversion’ would not 
some of his ‘Erect’ Descendants now and agan have pre- 
sented the remarkable phenomenon of the Eyelids fitting 
up to the Iris of the Eye, concealing altogether the 
Conjunctiva? I have seen no instance recorded of such 
Atavism. 
If the Races of Man do oft descend from One Pair, 
as is one of the philosophical theories, contridicting the 
Bible: and:if the Evolution theory is right, that all 
dscend from the ‘ Arboreal Ancestor,’ then in this small 
detail we have the astounding coincidence that all the 
Races have independently reached one point, the Evolu- 
tion of the Exposure of the Conjunctiva. 
I believe myself that as it is true that no one of 
God’s creatures, excepting Man, exposes the Conjunctiva, 
in which so greatly consists the clear beauty of Man’s ex- 
pressive countenance. So is it true that there is no Race 
of Man?which does not show, in all its examples, the 
Whites of the Eye. 
With reference to the Evolution of Mind in Man, 
and the other animals, there seems no great harmony 
amongst the Apostles. 
Darwin applied Psychological Evolution to the case 
of all the Organisms. 
Wallace, who I believe hesitated over the Evolution 
of Man’s frame from a common ancestor with the brutes 
certainly denied that Man’s mind was evolved from lower 
psychical types. 
