BIMANA. 3 
ORDER BIMANA. 
SomE people have an extreme repugnance to the idea that man should 
be treated of in connection with other animals. The development 
theory is shocking to them, and they would deny that man has anything 
in common with the brute creation. ‘This is of course mere sentiment ; 
no history of nature would be complete without the noblest work of the 
Creator. The great gulf that separates the human species from the rest 
of the animals is the impassable one of intellect. Physically, he should 
be compared with the other mammals, otherwise we should lose our first 
standpoint of comparison. There is no degradation in this, nor is it an 
acceptance of the development theory. To argue that man evolved 
from the monkey is an ingenious joke which will not bear the test of 
examination and the Scriptural account, may still be accepted. I firmly 
believe in man as an original creation just as much as I disbelieve in 
any development of the Flying Lemur (Galeopithecus) from the Bat, 
or that the habits of an animal would in time materially alter its 
anatomy, as in the case of the abnormal length of the hind toe and 
nail of the Jacana. Itis not that the habit of running over floating 
leaves induced the change, but that an all-wise Creator so fashioned 
it that it might run on those leaves in search of its food. I accept the 
development theory to the extent of the multiplication of species, or 
perhaps, more correctly, varieties in genera. We see in the human race 
how circumstances affect physical appearance. The child of the 
ploughman or navvy inherits the broad shoulders and thick-set frame 
of his father; and in India you may see it still more forcibly in the 
difference between Hindu and Mahomedan races, and those Hindus 
who have been converted to Mahomedanism. I do not mean isolated 
converts here and there who intermarry with pure Mahomedan women, 
but I mean whole communities who have in olden days been forced to 
accept Islam. In a few generations the face assumes an unmistakable 
Mahomedan type. It is the difference in living and in thought that 
effects this change. 
It is the same with animals inhabiting mountainous districts as 
compared with the same living in the plains; constant enforced exercise 
tells on the former, and induces a more robust and active form. 
Whether diet operates in the same degree to effect changes I am 
inclined to doubt. In man there is no dental or intestinal difference, 
whether he be as carnivorous as an Esquimaux or as vegetarian as a 
Hindu ; whereas in created carnivorous, insectivorous, and herbivorous 
animals there is a.striking difference, instantly to be recognised even in 
those of the same family. Therefore, if diet has operated in effecting 
such changes, why has it not in the human race ? 
B 2 
