52 STUDIES IN LIFE AND SENSE 1 



would add, neither can we take beauty into account in arguments 

 concerning the zoological position of the apes ; although Mr. Wallace 

 apparently forgets that amongst the monkeys, and in New World 

 groups especially, there are species to which the terms beautiful and 

 comely may with all justice be applied. The birds are more 

 beautiful than most quadrupeds : and an elegant kangaroo would 

 certainly be preferred by the aesthetic eye to the hippopotamus, rhi- 

 noceros, giraffe, or elephant. If we reject strength and beauty, there 

 remains, according to Mr. Wallace, " intelligence " as a criterion 

 of monkey rank. I shall presently endeavour to show that in this 

 latter respect the apes must claim to rank high in the mammalian 

 scale. But I would fain ask those who offer us the alternative of the 

 horse, elephant, and dog, as examples of sagacity and intelligence, 

 whether they are not choosing illustrations to which there exists a 

 grave logical objection on the score of unequal comparison. That 

 dogs and horses owe their sagacity and intelligence to human culture, 

 and to continual association with man, cannot I think for a moment 

 be questioned. Every horse and dog is really reaping to-day the 

 cumulative benefit of a civilised ancestry, so to speak. When we 

 speak of the intelligence of these animals, we must bear in mind, if 

 we are to gain the credit for logical consistency, that this intelligence 

 has been developed and fostered -through their employment by man, 

 and through their ministering to his wants, and their participation in 

 his works. It would, in truth, be a thing to excite our wonder, if the 

 horse and dog did not exhibit the intelligence we see illustrated in 

 their family circle. We can hardly fail to own and the result of my 

 own observations, to be presently noted, serves to support the con- 

 tention that had the apes and monkeys been domesticated by man, 

 and had they possessed the advantage of continual association with 

 him, their intelligence and sagacity would have far exceeded that of 

 any other animal group. What I certainly maintain, and what the 

 study of monkey life demonstrates, is that the wild and untrained 

 monkey, when compared with the wild horse, dog, or elephant, is a 

 creature of higher brain-power and greater intelligence than these 

 latter animals. To argue otherwise would simply amount to the 

 assertion of the incongruous statement, that an animal, such as an 

 orang or chimpanzee, a bonnet monkey or a capuchin, possessing a 

 type of brain nearly allied to that of man, would, when its kind was 

 domesticated, exhibit less intelligence than a quadruped which, like 

 horse or dog, possesses a brain far removed from that of man in 

 respect of its development. 



It is difficult to reconcile the first part of Mr. Wallace's conclu- 

 sion with his final words. " The combination of external characters 

 and internal structures " which is seen in the monkeys, and which, Mr. 

 Wallace rightly remarks, is that which under a higher guise makes 



