12 Proceedings of the Royal Physical Society. 
and occipitat lobes. In plate xii. of his Atlas, Gratiolet gave 
figures of numerous Primate brains, and marked the corre- 
sponding lobes and convolutions in the different brains by 
similar colours, so that the points of similarity could be 
readily appreciated. 
Soon after the publication of Gratiolet’s work, Professor 
Owen, in a paper read before the Linnean Society of 
London, “On the Characters, Principles of Division, and 
Primary Groups of the Class Mammalia,” endeavoured to 
prove that the growth backwards of the cerebral hemispheres 
was so marked in man that a posterior lobe “is peculiar to 
the genus homo, and equally peculiar is the posterior horn 
of the lateral ventricle and the hippocampus which char- 
acterise the hind lobe of each hemisphere.” In virtue of 
these special cerebral characters, Owen placed man in a 
separate subclass of the Mammalia, which he termed 
Archencephala. These views were vigorously controverted 
by Professors Huxley and Flower, who had little difficulty 
in proving that the possession of a posterior lobe, a posterior 
horn, and a hippocampus minor, were not peculiar to man, 
but existed in many apes. No one has contributed more to 
our knowledge of the anatomy of the anthropoid apes than 
Sir Richard Owen, but his warmest admirers must admit that 
anatomical facts lend no support to his statements on this 
subject. The most marked character which distinguishes 
the brain of man from that of the anthropoid apes is to be 
found in its large size, both absolutely and relatively, to the 
body weight. When we compare the individual lobes and 
convolutions, we find many interesting peculiarities in the 
human brain, but they are all of secondary importance. The 
contention of Huxley that the differences in the anatomy of 
man and the higher apes are much less than those between . 
the latter and the lower monkeys, are very.strikingly illus- 
trated by a comparison of their brains. 
The frontal lobe is now generally regarded as extending 
backwards to the fissure of Rolando, although Gratiolet 
placed it anterior to the convolution ascending in front of 
and parallel with that fissure. Physiologically, the two con- 
volutions bounding the fissure of Rolando are so intimately 
