FOURTH day's SITTING. 87 



87-5 ; in Asiatics, 87-1 ; and in Australians only 81-9 

 inches." (Vol. i. p. 146.) 



Lord G. That is not the point about which I enquire. 

 I ask, "What is the size of the brain in man compared with 

 its size in the lower animals — in the ape, for example ? 



Homo. Mr. Darwin, my Lord, gives no answer to that 

 question. He merely mentions some trifling facts about 

 the size of the brains and skulls of domestic rabbits, and 

 tells us how disease may modify the shape of the skull in 

 man. But Mr. Wallace mentions, at page 338 of " Con- 

 tributions to the theory of Natural Selection," that the 

 proportions are " represented by the following figures — 

 anthropoid apes, 10 ; savages, 26 ; civilized man, 32." 

 Mr. Wallace remarks (page 342) that man is able to " form 

 and use weapons and implements which are beyond the 

 physical power of brutes ; but having done this, he cer- 

 tainly does not exhibit more mind in using than do many 

 lower animals. What is there in the life of the savage (he 

 asks), but the satisfying of the cravings of appetite in the 

 simplest and easiest way ? What thoughts, ideas, or 

 actions are there, that raise him many grades above the 

 elephant or the ape ? Yet he possesses, as we have seen, 

 a brain vastly superior to theirs in size and complexity ; 

 and this brain gives him, in an undeveloped state, faculties 

 which he never requires to use." 



Lord C. These are most important considerations. 



Homo. My Lord, a writer in The Edinburgh Review for 

 July, 187 1, page 204, remarks on this : " It is clear, therefore, 

 that the brain of savage man is far beyond his needs. How 

 can this be accounted for by the principle of Natural Selec- 

 tion, or by the accumulation of small variations good for 

 the individual ? The large size " of the brain of the savage 

 "cannot be traced to circumstances of life, because it is quite 



