34 ON THE AFFINITIES AND DIFFERENCES BETWEEN THE 



work, published in 1854 (see page 2 of his 'Memoire' and figures 

 passim), we always meet with ' un lobe posterieur recouvrant 

 completement le cervelet ;' but in a most striking paper of his, 

 published in one of the April numbers of the 'Comptes Rendus' for 

 1860, p. 803, we find him allowing that the cerebellum is un- 

 covered laterally by the cerebral hemispheres in no less an ape than 

 the gorilla, now so familiar to our ears and eyes. This admission 

 however of M. Gratiolet's — it is not an admission on his part, for 

 he is not arguing, but stating what he has observed — does but 

 little invalidate our reasoning, for in that paper we have such a 

 description given of the brain of this would-be King of the Simiadae 

 as — if brain structure is to be considered of any importance at all — 

 justifies the describer in speaking of the gorilla as ' the last, the 

 most degraded of all the anthropomorphous apes.' In the world 

 of science, as in that of politics, France and England have oc- 

 casionally differed as to their choice between rival candidates for 

 royalty. In M. Gratiolet's paper we have his case laid before the 

 world in a manner which other state papers might do well to 

 imitate. If either hereditary claims or personal merits affect at 

 all the right of succession, beyond a question the gorilla is but a 

 pretender, and one or other of the two candidates the true prince. 

 There is a graceful as well as an ungraceful way of withdrawing 

 from a false position, and the British public will adopt the graceful 

 course by accepting forthwith and henceforth the French candidate, 

 and by endorsing M. Gratiolet's proposal for speaking of the gorilla 

 as but a baboon, of the chimpanzee as a macaque, and of the orang 

 as a gibbon. Before leaving this subject, which has something of 

 the nature of a digression, it is perhaps worth while to remark that 

 nearly ten years before M. Gratiolet came into the possession of the 

 brain of the gorilla he had, from the consideration of the form of 

 casts of its cranial cavity, been led to predict what the brain would 

 be found to be whensoever it came to be examined. It is impos- 

 sible to bring stronger proof of the accuracy and value of his method 

 — the aim of seeing in science being that we may foresee. 



One point of yet greater difference can be detected by the un- 

 instructed eye as existing between the brains of men and the apes, 

 from looking at the organs themselves, though not from looking at 

 the figures of them, which are all drawn of nearly equal size. This 

 point is the greater height of the human brain. Common language 



