70 
eaters, nor the carnivorous Cats, Dogs, and Bears, still less 
the Rodent Rats and Rabbits, or the Insectivorous Moles and 
Hedgehogs, or the Bats, could claim our ‘Homo’ as one of 
themselves. 
There would remain then, but one order for comparison, 
that of the Apes (using that werd in its broadest sense), and 
the question for discussion would narrow itself to this—is 
Man so different from any of these Apes that he must form 
an order by himself? Or does he differ less from them than 
they differ from one another, and hence must take his place 
in the same order with them? 
Being happily free from all real, or imaginary, personal in- 
terest in the results of the inquiry thus set afoot, we should 
proceed to weigh the arguments on one side and on the 
other, with as much judicial calmness as if the question re- 
lated to a new Opossum. We should endeavour to ascertain, 
without seeking either to magnify or diminish them, all the 
characters by which our new Mammal differed from the 
Apes; and if we found that these were of less structural 
value, than those which distinguish certain members of the 
Ape order from others universally admitted to be of the 
same order, we should undoubtedly place the newly dis- 
covered tellurian genus with them. 
I now proceed to detail the facts which seem to me to 
leave us no choice but to adopt the last mentioned course. 
It is quite certain that the Ape which most nearly ap- 
proaches man, in the totality of its organization, is either 
the Chimpanzee or the Gorilla; and as it makes no prac- 
tical difference, for the purposes of my present argument, 
which is selected for comparison, on the one hand, with Man, 
and on the other hand, with the rest of the Primates,* I 
shall select the latter (so far as its organization is known) — 
* We are not at present thoroughly acquainted with the brain of the Gorilla, 
and therefore, in discussing cerebral characters, I shall take that of the Chim- 
panzee as my highest term among the Apes. 
