DOES LIKENESS PROVE DESCENT? 171 



there can be no place for man in the systematic 

 succession of apes. Quatrefages, the great 

 French scientist, in his work &quot;&quot;L Espice Hu~ 

 maine&quot; translated into English under the title 

 &quot;The Human Species,&quot; says : 



Now man and apes present a very striking contrast in respect 

 to type. The organs, as I have already remarked, correspond 

 almost exactly, term for term; but these organs are arranged 

 after a very different plan. In man they are so arranged that 

 he is essentially a walker; while in apes, they necessitate his 

 being a climber, just as strongly ... a walking animal cannot 



be descended from a climbing one The researches of 



Walker on the sphenoidal angle of Virchow lead to the same 

 conclusion; for in man the angle diminishes from the time of 

 birth, while in the ape it is always increasing; so much so 

 that sometimes it is effaced. 4 



Applying the principle of Darwin himself, he 

 shows in regard to the temporal sphenoidal con 

 volutions that the development of man is in in 

 verse order to that of the ape, and that hence 

 &quot;Man cannot be considered as the descendant of 

 any simian type whatever.&quot; 



Kollman, Virchow and others have similarly 

 pointed out the impossibility of man fitting in 

 anywhere in a succession from the apes in view 

 of the differences in the extremities of the limbs, 

 which would rather make the ape a descendant of 

 man. 5 But the main difference in structure be 

 tween man and all other animals, whether we 



4 &quot;L Espece Humaine&quot; p. 107. 



6 Virchow, Kollman, etc., long ago held that on evolutionary 

 principles man and the apes would seem to be the two ex 

 tremes of entirely divergent lines of development. 



