THE GORILLA. 317 
the three structures mentioned not only exist, but are often better developed 
than in map, in all the higher apes. He now appealed to the anatomists present 
in the section, whether the universal voice of continental and British anatomists 
had not entirely borne out his statements and refuted those of Professor Owen.” 
This is very strong language. As to certain anatomists present, no doubt the 
learned professor knew that he could rely upon them to support his views, 
but we are exceedingly mistaken if their verdict would be confirmed by the 
great body of those conversant with the facts. At all events, those who are 
obliged to take their data from others find, in this case, that, respecting matters 
of fact, two of the very highest authorities are directly opposed; and upon what 
are they to rely? They may, indeed, remember, as accounting in some degree 
for the different perceptions of the observers, that Professer Owen believes in 
the reality and permanence of species, and regards the various degrees of 
‘development of the nervous system as likely to furnish the most important ‘of 
all characters; whilst Professor Huxley warmly defends the Darwinian theory 
respecting the origin and changes of species, and professes to regard the 
Superiority of man to other animals as independent of structural differences. 
The former, in studying the brains of the animals nearest to man, would be 
watchful for good distinguishing characters, and acutely sensible to any which 
presented themselves : the latter would look at the same objects to search for 
analogies, and to find out the course of transition from one structure to another. 
We cannot but think that much of the difference in this case is, not as to what 
is actually seen, but as to the importance and real meaning of the appearances ; 
and we must add that Professor Owen’s view is strikingly confirmed by the 
gradations in the Mammalian brain throughout the lower forms, the extension 
of the cerebral hemisphere anteriorly, and still more manifestly posteriorly, 
being the invariable accompaniment of every elevation of structure. 
Professor Rolleston, in professing to specify the real differences between the 
brain of man and that of the apes, which he accused Owen of neglecting, 
points out, from Gratiolet, striking particulars of real importance, though not 
what Owen had taken for the character of his Archencephala, but the assump- * 
tion that Owen was ignorant of or neglected these particulars because they did 
not enter into his differential character, for which purpose they were not well 
suited, is most unfair. The presence of gyrations on the brain is assumed by 
him as the distinction of his second great division, being thus taken as a 
sign of more advanced development than when thtse gyrations are absent, the 
natural conclusion being that they would be still more fully developed in the 
higher division. And this was even expressly stated by Owen, as in his Cam- 
bridge lecture, in 1859, where he concludes his character of the Archencephala 
in these words: “‘ The superficial grey matter of the cerebrum, through the num- 
ber and depth of the convolutions, attains its maximum of extent in Man.” Besides 
all this Professor Owen was able to repel the charge of overlooking this pecu- 
liarity by referring to’his lectures on the convolutions of the brain, delivered 
“(almost at the very time when Leunet wrote his memoir on the subject,” and 
the diagrams of which are still in the Museum of the Royal College of Surgeons. 
Without neglecting or undervaluing other accompanying signs of higher de- 
