CHAP. xxiv. OF MAN AND APES COMPARED. 487 



finitely from the original Type,' did not appear till 1858, a 

 year after Professor Owen's classification of the mammalia, 

 and as Darwin's ' Origin of Species ' was not published till 

 another year had elapsed, we cannot accept the explanation 

 above offered to us of the causes which led the founder of 

 the sub-class Archencephala to seek for new points of dis 

 tinction between the human and simian brains; but the 

 Dutch anatomists may have fallen into this anachronism by 

 having just read, in the paper by Professor Owen in the 

 Annals, some prefatory allusions to f the Vestiges of Creation, 

 'Natural Selection, and the question whether man be or be 

 not a descendant of the ape.' 



The number of original and important memoirs to which 

 this discussion on the cerebral relations of Man to the Pri 

 mates has already given rise in less than five years, must 

 render the controversy for ever memorable in the history of 

 Comparative Anatomy.* 



In England alone, no less than fifteen genera of the Pri 

 mates (the subjects having been almost all furnished by that 

 admirable institution, the Zoological Gardens of London) 

 have been anatomically examined, and they include nearly 

 all the leading types of structure of the Old and New 

 World apes and monkeys, from the most anthropoid form to 

 that farthest removed from Man ; in other words, from the 

 Chimpanzee to the Lemur. These are 



Troglodytes (Chimpanzee). 

 Pithecus (Orang). 

 Hylobates (Gibbon). 



Semnopithecus. 

 Cercopithecus. 

 Macacus. 

 Cynocephalus (Baboon). 



* Eolleston, Natural History Ee- Transactions, 1862.) Id. on Javan 



view, April 1861. Huxley, on Brain Loris (Proceedings of the Zoological 



of Ateles, Zoological Proceedings, Society, 1862). Id. on Anatomy of 



June 1861. Flower, Posterior Lobe Pithecia (ibid. December 1862). 

 in Quadrumana, &c. (Philosophical 



