OF MAN AND ANIMALS. 285 



one, identical? Although there may be no physical or 

 chemical differences, we know that the life history of these 

 several forms is very different, while the results of their living 

 are sufficient to prove that they must have been diverse 

 from the very first. 



It seems to have been pretty generally concluded that 

 if according to the teaching of Huxley, we allow " that the 

 mode of origin and the early stages of man are identical 

 with* those of the animals immediately below him in the 

 scale," we must necessarily adopt the conclusion that there 

 is some real bodily relationship between man and these 

 animals. It has been further argued that as the human being 

 is more like the ape than the ape is like the dog, man must 

 therefore be more nearly related to the apes than he is to 

 the dog, or than the latter is to the apes. But this conclu- 

 sion by no means follows. All observers will fully accept 

 the statement as correct in a general sense ; but any man will 

 utterly demur to the conclusion that it is desired to establish. 

 Laws very different from any propounded by the evolu- 



* The word "identical" is misleading. Mr. Huxley himself will 

 not insist that it is correctly used in the sentence quoted. He would not 

 probably object to substitute for " identical with" " very similar to," or 

 "very like." Many people will, doubtless, characterise my objections 

 to a term as frivolous, but if like, very like, similar to, resembling, or 

 closely resembling, are to be considered as having the ^ame meaning as 

 "identical with" in such discussions as these, the naturalist who could 

 not prove to the entire satisfaction of the public opposite theories 

 to be true, would be an object deserving of pity. If the processes in 

 question had been really "identical," there would have been no dif- 

 ference of opinion concerning the community of origin of living creatures. 

 Nay, the question would never have been mooted. But as the pheno- 

 mena, so far from being identical, only resemble one another in some 

 particulars, these facts may perhaps be more clearly explained by a 

 view differing toto ccelo from the community of origin hypothesis. 



