2Q2 THE DOCTRINE OF DESCENT. 



the orang, for instance, are far more like those of man 

 than of the chimpanzee, and that the differences which 

 exist can at the most have the value of specific cr 

 generic characters. 



The distance between the lower and higher apes is 

 far greater than between the latter and man ; and if the 

 consanguinity of the entire apedom is decisive in favour 

 of Darwinistic views, there can be the less doubt of the 

 kindred connection of the Old-World apes to mankind. 

 But the form of the mature skull and of the dentition 

 (to lay a stress upon these organs), preclude the idea 

 that the direct ancestors of man are to be found among 

 the apes now living. The cheap jest, produced with so 

 much glee, of inquiring why we do not behold the in- 

 teresting spectacle of the transformation Of a chimpanzee 

 into a man, or conversely, of a man by retrogression into 

 an orang, merely testifies the crudest ignorance of 

 the doctrine of Descent. Not one of these apes can 

 revert to the state of his primordial ancestors, because, 

 except by retrogression by which a primordial condi- 

 tion is by no means attained he cannot divest himself 

 of his acquired characters fixed by heredity ; nor can 

 he exceed himself and become man ; for man does 

 not stand in the direct line of development from the 

 ape. The development of the anthropoid apes has 

 taken a lateral course from the nearest human progeni- 

 tors, and man can as little be transformed into a gorilla 

 as a squirrel can be changed into a rat. Man's kinship 

 with the apes is, therefore, not impugned by the bestial 

 strength of the teeth of a male orang or gorilla, or by the 

 crests and protuberances on the skulls of these animals. 

 A renowned zoologist, one of the few who adhere to the 



