116 
the trne proportion in which the cerebrum covers the cerebellum in the 
highest Apes, reference should be made to the figure of the undissected brain 
of the Chimpanzee in my ‘ Reade’s Lecture on the Classification, &c. of the 
Mammalia,’ p. 25, fig. 7, 8vo. 1859.” 
It would not be credible, if it were not unfortunately true, that this figure, to 
which the trusting public is referred, without a word of qualification, “for the 
true proportion in which the cerebrum covers the cerebellum in the highest 
Apes,” is exactly that unacknowledged copy of Schroeder van der Kolk and 
Vrolik’s figure whose utter inaccuracy had been pointed out years before by 
Gratiolet, and had been brought to Professor Owen’s knowledge by myself in 
the passage of my article in the ‘ Natural History Review’ above quoted. 
I drew public attention to this circumstance again in my reply to Professor 
Owen, published in the ‘ Atheneum’ for April 13th, 1861; but the exploded 
figure was reproduced once more by Professor Owen, without the slightest allu- 
sion to its inaccuracy, in the ‘ Annals of Natural History’ for June 1861! 
This proved too much for the patience of the original authors of the figure, 
Messrs. Schroeder van der Kolk and Vrolik, who, in a note addressed to the 
Academy of Amsterdam, of which they were members, declared themselves 
to be, though decided opponents of all forms of the doctrine of progressive 
development, above all things, lovers of truth: and that, therefore, at whatever 
risk of seeming to lend support to views which they disliked, they felt it their 
duty to take the first opportunity of publicly repudiating Professor Owen’s mis- 
use of their authority. 
In this note they frankly admitted the justice of the criticisms of M. Gratiolet, 
quoted above, and they illustrated, by new and careful figures, the posterior lobe, 
the posterior cornu, and the hippocampus minor of the Orang. Furthermore, 
having demonstrated the parts, at one of the sittings of the Academy, they 
add, “la présence des parties contestees y a été universellement reconnue par 
“les anatomistes présents & la séance. Le seul doute qui soit resté se rapporte 
au pes Hippocampi minor. .... A létat frais l'indice du petit pied d’Hippo- 
campe était plus prononcé que maintenant.” 
Professor Owen repeated his erroneous assertions at the meeting of the British 
Association in 1861, and again, without any obvious necessity, and without 
adducing a single new fact or new argument, or being able in any way to meet 
