BRAIN OF MAN AND THE BRAINS OF CERTAIN ANIMALS. 33 



tempted to connect with this greater development of cerebral sub- 

 stance, but that the uncovered cerebellum of the dog stands before us 

 in the same plate as the largely covered cerebellum of the vervet. I 

 must say a word, however, here upon the relations of being over- 

 lapped and of outcropping, both laterally and antero-posteriorly, 

 which the cerebellum holds to the cerebrum in the largest of the 

 apes, for in them the cerebellum is much larger, and especially is it 

 much wider, in relation to the cerebral hemispheres, than it is in 

 man. In the lower monkeys, on a basal view, a broadish rim 

 affords room enough for the anatomist's finger to travel all round 

 the cerebellum, and the like is the case in man. In the chim- 

 panzee, according to Mr. Marshall (from whose paper 1 I have 

 already borrowed much), such a rim as this is traceable, though in more 

 curtailed lateral and greater posterior proportions than in man around 

 the cerebellum. In the orang the narrowed boat-like posterior 

 lobes hold a less favourable relation, both laterally and posteriorly* 

 to the naderlying after-brain than they do in the African ape, but 

 even in this ape there is, as casts of the skull cavity will show, no 

 margin allowed us for speaking of an uncovered, outcropping cere- 

 bellum, at all events in the longitudinal direction. I put in this 

 limitation because the celebrated Dutch anatomists, already quoted, 

 seem to think that the very small segment of cerebellum, which 

 peeps out on either side, though not in the middle line posteriorly 

 of their figure, may perhaps have peeped out to some extent, 

 though not to the entire extent represented, whilst the organ held 

 their natural relation to each other. Not the least valuable part 

 of Mr. Marshall's valuable paper is that in which he gives us an 

 explanation of the way in which the relative positions of the 

 different parts of the encephalon become altered when the organ is 

 removed from the cranial case which supported it during life. This 

 explanation will be valuable to the general public, for it will make 

 clear what to them has been a mystery, viz. how anatomists can 

 come to differ as to mere matters of measurement ; showing how 

 widely a brain preserved in spirit may differ from the same brain 

 unsubjected to the working of that agent, it teaches us that no 

 conscientious anatomist should describe a preserved brain without 

 having side by side with it a cast of the skull whence it was taken ■. 

 In the letter-press and in the figures of M. Gratiolet's invaluable 



1 'Nat. Hist. Review,' July, i86r, p. 304. 

 D 



