156 ON CERTAIN MODERN VIEWS 



of Linneeus, that even that illustrious philosopher, iii his Systema 

 Naturse, has found a separate place for children lost in the woods, and 

 growing up in speechless solitude. These he classes under the title of 

 Homo sapiens ferus, and appends the complimentary characteristics of 

 " tefrapus, mutus, hirsutus ;" thus coinciding to a certain extent with 

 the views of Rousseau, who came to the conclusion that probably many 

 animals of an anthropoid character, which travellers had pronounced 

 to be beasts, were really genuine wild men {veritables hommes sauvages), 

 in the primitive state of nature. 



The arrangement of Cuvier, that, namely, of placing man in a dis- 

 tinct order by himself, the order comprising only one genus -and one 

 species — thus at once establishing his preeminence, and asserting the 

 unity of the human family, appeared to satisfy the most enlightened 

 philosophers of his time. Eminent physiologists supported his doc- 

 trine, the great name of Blumenbach being ranged on his side. 

 Indeed Blumenbach has the credit of being the originator of the 

 arrangement of Cuvier. It certainly was gratifying to human beings 

 that Homo, if he must consent to be styled an animal, should stand 

 alone in order, genus and species, the head and monarch of the animal 

 creation. But he has not been allowed to enjoy his dignified soli- 

 tude without murmurs of dissatisfaction. The close approximation 

 to him in structural characteristics observed in other mammalia, and 

 particularly in the Quadrumana, has led some naturalists to the con- 

 clusion that he cannot justly occupy a whole order in the animal 

 kingdom. The hypothesis of development, which has of late years 

 excited much interest in the scientific world, has imparted a stimulus 

 to enquiry on this subject ; and we find, as we should naturally 

 expect, that those who regard that theory with favor, are the persons 

 who are most ready to dispute the arrangement of Cuvier. 



The object of the present paper is to bring before the members of 

 the Institute, whose studies have not lain in this direction, a brief re- 

 sume of the arguments adduced to prove that man possesses no right 

 to monopolize an entire, distinct, and preeminent order. 



The most concise mode of fairly representing these arguments will 

 be to analyse an essay on " The Relations of Man to the Lower Ani- 

 mals," contained in a work entitled " Evidence as to Man's place in 

 Nature," not long since published by Professor Huxley of London, a 

 gentleman who, however we may differ from him on disputed points, 

 is deserving of our respect and attention. His claim to these is founded 



