EARLY ONTOGENETIC PHENOMENA IN MAMMALS. 163 
connective stalk, is so utterly different from what we find in 
Lemurs, and on the other hand so closely homologous if we 
take forms so wide apart as Tarsius and man, that we must 
frankly recognise that if ever, then here is a case in which 
these details of internal anatomy, as revealed by ontogeny, 
must weigh very heavily in the scale. 
Wortman has not taken the least notice of the very impor- 
tant differences in the early blastocyst, and takes it easy with 
the placental differences as we have seen by the citation on 
p- 162. He even commits himself to the following state- 
ment (l.c., p. 405): ‘‘While it is probably true that these 
characters derived from the soft anatomy indicate a wide 
distinction between existing monkeys and lemurs, 
yet it is much to be doubted whether these distinctions would 
not assume very small proportions or completely disappear, 
did we have an Hocene monkey with which to make the com- 
parison.” Now this piece of reasoning is very lame indeed. 
We have an Kocene monkey to compare with Tarsius, viz. 
Anaptomorphus. On p. 215 of another publication (’04) 
Wortman (who places both in the same suborder as monkeys 
and man) enumerates eleven points of resemblance between 
Tarsius and Anaptomorphus (1) in size, (2) in brain develop- 
ment, (3) in relation of brain to foramen magnum, (4) in 
absence of sagittal crest, (5) in shortend face and large orbits, 
(6) in situation of internal carotid canal, (7) in dentition, 
(8) in structure of molars and premolars, (9) in shape of bulla, 
(10) in lachrymal bone and lachrymal opening, (11) in rela- 
tions of lachrymal and malar. 
Now, where these numerous points of resemblance exist it 
would be most illogical to presume, without strong positive 
evidence, that blastocyst and placenta of the Hocene Anapto- 
morphus as compared to the living Tarsius, were as wide 
apart as is that of a true Lemur like Nycticebus from that of 
Tarsius, as Wortman would have us believe. Moreover, this 
would not be an advance in any respect, because we do not 
see our way to derive the arrangements in Tarsius from those 
present in Nycticebus. 
