1866. | The Origin and Antiquity of Man. 59 
_ Everyone must admit the justice of the remark that the earliest 
traces of man are more likely to be found in a genial than in a 
rigorous climate ; but as regards the valley of the Ganges, accord- 
ing to Mr. Fergusson, but an insignificant portion of it was habit- 
able at so recent a date as B.c. 8000. The last sentence refers to a 
different consideration altogether, and it will doubtless be asked by 
some, What bearing has it on the question? Why should we expect 
that man appeared first in those regions where the animals which 
approach him nearest now exist, and where their fossil remains turn 
up in the greatest variety and abundance? We are a little uncer- 
tain whether we have here a statement of extreme development 
opinions, clouded by the effort not “to shock the strong prejudices 
on the subject,” which are now “dominant among educated men,” 
or whether there. be not some “reciprocal” view which we cannot 
perceive. 
The probable origin of man could hardly fail to become a sub- 
ject of speculation to those engaged in determining his antiquity ; 
accordingly we find that several naturalists have ventured to tread 
on this very delicate ground. In his ‘ Prehistoric Times, Mr. 
Lubbock has touched upon this subject, and it may be useful to cull 
from his pages two or three quotations contaiming expressions of 
the opinion of certain savants of eminence. Professor Huxley, for 
instance, has remarked that “the first traces of the primordial 
stock whence man has proceeded need no longer be sought, by 
those who entertain any form of the doctrine of progressive develop- 
ment, in the newest Tertiaries; but that they may be looked for in 
an epoch more distant from the age of the Hlephas prinugenius 
than that is from us.” Sir Charles Lyell ‘thinks that we may 
expect to find remains of man in Pliocene strata, but there he draws 
the line.” Mr. Lubbock combats this opinion, but does not advance 
any strong argument against it, though he eclipses everyone else in 
the candour with which he states his opmion. Thus, “it is true 
that few of our existing species or even genera have as yet been 
found in Miocene strata ; but if man constitutes a separate family 
of mammalia, as he does in the opinion of the highest authorities, 
then, according to all paleontological analogies, he must have had 
representatives in Miocene times. We need not, however, expect 
to find the proofs in Europe; our nearest relatives in the animal 
kingdom are confined to hot, almost to tropical climates, and it is 
in such countries that we must look for the earliest traces of the 
human race.” 
Admitting Mr. Lubbock’s premisses, man may, not must, have 
had “representatives” in Miocene times. Then “according to all 
paleontological analogies,” the duration in time of a group of animals 
(whether family, genus, or order) varies inversely with its organiza- 
tion, so the family represented by man must have had a geologically 
