1910.] The Primates. 321 



The subsequent history of the ehissifieation of the Primates is too extensive 

 to be followed here. Notwithstanding the labors of Mivart, Forsyth Major, 

 Gaudry, Filhol, Grandidier, Schlosser, Branco, Selenka, Hubrecht, Cope, 

 Osborn, Wortman, and others, the exact relations of the Tertiary and Recent 

 families is still more or less unsettled and calls for a general review of the 

 main lines of evidence. 



At least one great result, the derivation of Man from some as yet undis- 

 covered Tertiary Primate may be considered to be as well established as 

 any of the great postulates of geology. It rests upon evidence which has 

 been gathered from every possible source and tested by a long line of de- 

 fenders and critics. To the -palj3eontologist who has acquired by experience 

 some ability to distinguish between the effects of convergent evolution and 

 the marks of ancestral kinship there can be no doubt whatever about the 

 meaning of the resemblances obtaining throughout the entire organism 

 between Man and the Catarhine Primates. The resemblances are such as 

 generally denote ancestral kinship, the differences are such as denote adap- 

 tive divergence from a common type. 



Genetic relations of tJie Primates. 



The separation of the Prosimi?e and Simise may well date back to the 

 Lower Eocene, but that the two groups were at that time closely related 

 seems to be well established: first, by the very numerous and deep seated 

 characters still retained in common by the two orders (see Weber, 1904, 

 p. 741); secondly, by the existence of such generalized forms as the Middle 

 Eocene Notharctida?; thirdly, bv the annectant character of Tar.nus, which, 

 while still a "Lemur of lemurs" is related in the other direction to the 

 Anthropoidea (Elliot Smith, 1903) ; fourthly by the agreement in fundamental 

 brain characters between the Lemurs and Anthropoids (Elliot Smith, op. cit.) . 



The derivation of the order from large-brained arboreal Insectivores 

 resembling in many ways Tupaia and Ptilocercus is indicated by the follow- 

 ino; considerations: 



3.1.4.3. 



(1) The dental formulje of the Primates are all derivatives of ^ 



3.- 



(2) The molars were primitively tritubercular above and tuberculo- 

 sectorial below, perhaps resembling those of the modern Ptilocercus in many 

 characters. 



(3) The upi)er fourth premolars were bicuspid, the lower premolars 

 high and pointed. The diet was probably insectivorous-frugivorous. 



(4) The course of the entocarotid in Lemuridre and ChiromyidcC cor- 

 responds with that in the Tupaiidse (van Kampen, 1905, p. 680). 



(5) Many Primate characters of the skull are foreshadowed in Tupaia 

 and Ptilocercus (pp. 273, 274). 



