he" 
ANTHROPOLOG Y. 
169 
savages. If we now compare the mental powers of the 
higher animals, such as those of the Horse, Dog, Elephant, 
Monkeys, with those of such savages as we have mentioned, 
and these with the most cultivated of men, we come to the 
conclusion that the difference is certainly much less between 
the higher animals and the lower races of mankind than 
between these and men like Shakspeare, Newton, Hunter, 
Voltaire, La Place, Cuvier, Goethe, Gauss, Müller. 
We hope now to have shown that the difference between 
Man and the other members of the animal kingdom is not 
one of 
— 
kind, but only one of degree. Notwithstanding the 
great differences exhibited by the races of mankind in color, 
hair, skin, skull, teeth, mental and moral powers, every one 
admits that the civilized have descended from the bar- 
barous races; the Australian of the present day, for ex- 
ample, representing pretty well the ancient Briton. But 
we hope to have shown that the difference between a New- 
ton and an Australian is much greater than that between 
an Australian and the higher Apes. It follows, therefore, 
that if a Newton could be developed from an ancient Briton, 
or his living representative an Australian, an Australian 
could be developed from an Ape. 
Webegan this chapter by stating that supposing thetheory 
of the Evolution of Life to be true, the animal descent of 
man was a necessary consequence, and therefore the absence 
or presence of transitional forms was comparatively unim- 
portant. In trying, however, to show that man differs 
from animals only in degree, not in kind, we hope to have 
made out a series of transitional forms, beginning with the 
lower monkeys and ascending from them, through the 
higher apes and the lower races of mankind, to the higher. 
Thus, the skulls of the Chimpanzee, Idiot, Negro, and Cal- 
muck, offer a series of ascending forms. By comparing Figs. 
197, 198, 199, 200, it will be seen that the receding fore- 
head, which is a striking feature in the skulls of Negroes 
