MONKEYS. 51 



Again, Mr. Wallace remarks that " if this would have been a true 

 estimate, the mere fact that the ape is our nearest relation does not 

 necessarily oblige us to come to any other conclusion. Man is 

 undoubtedly the most perfect of all animals, but he is so solely in 

 respect of characters in which he differs from all the monkey-tribe 

 the easily erect posture, the perfect freedom of the hands from all 

 part in locomotion, the large size and complete opposability of the 

 thumb, and the well-developed brain, which enables him fully to 

 utilise these combined physical advantages. The monkeys have 

 none of these ; and without them the amount of resemblance they 

 have to us is no advantage, and confers no rank." Remarking next 

 that we are too much biassed by the considerations of the man-like 

 apes, Mr. Wallace adds that the remaining monkeys would probably 

 be classified in a lower group than that in which they are at present 

 included. "We might then dwell more on their resemblances to 

 lower types to rodents, to insectivora, and to marsupials, and should 

 hardly rank the hideous baboon above the graceful leopard or stately 

 stag. The true conclusion appears to be," says Mr. Wallace, 

 " that the combination of external characters and internal structure 

 which exists in the monkeys, is that which, when greatly improved, 

 refined, and beautified a was best calculated to become the perfect 

 instrument of the human intellect, and to aid in the development of 

 man's higher nature ; while on the other hand, in the rude, inharmo- 

 nious, and undeveloped state which it has reached in the quad- 

 rumana, it is by no means worthy of the highest place, or can be held 

 to exhibit the most perfect development of existing animal life." 



The foregoing statements are deserving of close attention, not 

 only because they proceed from a naturalist of high reputation, but 

 because they present certain ideas concerning the place and posi- 

 tion of the monkey-tribe which are susceptible, in my opinion, 

 of very important modification, if not of absolute refutation, in 

 certain respects at least. When Mr. Wallace speaks of the monkeys 

 as not comparing in size, strength, or beauty with many other forms, 

 and as not surpassing, even if they equal, the horse or the beaver in 

 intelligence, we may well question whether his statements are not 

 open to legitimate denial. If the collective strength of any group of 

 quadrupeds save perhaps such an exclusively limited order as the 

 elephants is taken into account, it may be maintained that such a 

 group will inevitably present its weaklings as well as its giants to the 

 view of the naturalist. If the lower monkeys, or even the intelligent 

 Old World forms, are by no means physically strong, we must not 

 forget that the monkeys own not only their powerful baboons, which 

 may well rival the Carnivora in strength, but also the gorilla and 

 orang, whose physical power ranks extremely high. But it may fairly 

 be objected that strength is no criterion of zoological rank ; and I 



E 2 



