COMPARATIVE ZOOLOGY. 



forms into high and low. Shall we make structure 

 the criterion of rank? Plainly the simple Jelly-fish 

 is beneath complicated Man. An ounce of muscle 

 is worth a pound of protoplasm, and a grain of ner- 

 vous matter is of more account than a ton of flesh. 

 The intricate and finished build of the Horse elevates 

 him immeasurably above the stupid Snail. The repeti- 

 tion of similar parts, as in the Worm, is a sign of low 

 life. So also a prolonged posterior is a mark of inferior- 

 ity, as the Lobsters are lower than the Crabs, Snakes 

 than Lizards, Monkeys than Apes. The possession of 

 a head distinct from the region behind it is a sign of 

 power. And in proportion as the fore -limbs are used 

 independently of the hind limbs, the animal ascends 

 the scale: compare the Whale, Horse, Cat, Monkey, and 

 Man. 



But shall the Fish, never rising above the " monotony 

 of its daily swim," be allowed to outrank the skilful Bee? 

 Shall the brainless, sightless, almost heartless Amphioxus, 

 a Vertebrate, be allowed to stand nearer to Man than the 

 Ant? What is the possession of a backbone to intelli- 

 gence ? No good reason can be given why we might not 

 be just as intelligent beings if we carried, like the Insect, 

 our hearts in our backs and our spinal cords in our breasts. 

 So far as its activity is concerned, the brain may be as ef- 

 fective if spread out like a map as packed into its present 

 shape. Even animals of the same type, as Vertebrates, 

 cannot be ranked according to complexity. For while 

 Mammals, on the whole, are superior to Birds, Birds to 

 Reptiles, and Reptiles to Fishes, they are not so in every 

 respect. Man himself is not altogether at the head of 

 creation. We carry about in our bodies embryonic struct- 

 ures. That structural affinity and vital dignity are not 

 always parallel may be seen by comparing an Australian 

 and an Englishman. 1 " 



