1863. | Zoology and Physiology. 511 
With regard to Dr. Hunt’s views of the Negro’s place in nature, his 
paper proposed to show, that in the proportions of the arm, the form 
of the hips, thighs and fingers, the flatness of the foot, and the size of 
the molar teeth, there appeared a nearer approach to the ape than was 
seen in the European. The brain was comparatively small, the facial 
angle low, and all development of the brain ceased at puberty, while the 
form of the skull became more ape-like as he advanced in years. The 
structure of the brain was distinct from that of any other race of man ; 
and it had yet to be established whether the offspring of the Huropean 
and Negro were indefinitely prolific. There was not a single instance 
of a pure Negro being eminent in science, literature, or art; and Dr. 
Hunt concluded from all his observations, that there was as good 
reason for classifying the Negro as a distinct species from the 
Buropean, as there is for making the ass a distinct species from the 
zebra,—that the analogies are far more numerous between the Negro 
and apes, than between the European and apes—that the Negro is 
inferior, intellectually, to the European—that the Negro is more 
humanized when he is in his natural subordination to the European 
than under any other circumstances—that the Negro, indeed, can only 
be humanized and civilized by Europeans, and that Huropean civiliza- 
tion is not suited to the requirements and character of the Negro. 
These premises evoked a considerable amount of discussion at the 
time the address was delivered, in which, although some were 
decidedly opposed to the whole theory, the balance of opinion 
appeared to be in Dr. Hunt’s favour. Subsequently, Professor 
Huxley, in his Hunterian lecture, alluded to the paper for the 
purpose of condemning it, which called forth a paper war in the 
columns of the ‘ Reader,’ between Dr. Hunt, Mr. C. Carter Blake, 
and Professor Huxley. This discussion, however, which promised to 
be a very acrimonious one, and was not carried on with the most 
desirable courtesy, was nipped in the bud by the reticence of the 
Professor, who having had his word, let the matter drop, and returned 
no response to the replies of the leaders of the Anthropological 
Society. 
M. Gratiolet has been discoursing upon Man’s place in nature, 
and his remarks are, of course, worthy of great attention. Speak- 
ing of the brain of the apes, he says: “There is an enormous 
posterior cornu with lateral ventricles, and it occupies all the interior 
of the posterior lobes of the hemispheres. This fact has been denied 
by Professor Owen, but his error is obvious.” He goes on to observe 
that the encephalon of man and that of the apes present a typical 
resemblance, and this resemblance is exclusive—man resembles the 
apes and the apes only. All the differences relate to secondary 
characteristics—the volume, complication, and reciprocal proportions 
of the parts. But at no epoch is the human brain, typically so like 
an ape’s brain, actually an ape’s brain. One can make of material 
man neither a kingdom, a division, a class, an order, nor a family of 
an order. He is apart from the beings which most resemble him. He 
also compares the hand of the ape and man. In the former, in reality, 
the hand is free only when the animal is at rest, and this liberty 
