﻿1XXX PROCEEDINGS OF THE GEOLOGICAL SOCIETY. [May I9IO, 



the human hand an argument in favour of a remote origin. But 

 there is no necessity to go back to the Prosimiadse for an 

 explanation of this. The general plan upon which the human 

 hand is constructed is the same as that of the apes, and the details 

 are so similar that Huxley used to cite the resemblance between 

 the hand of Man and the man-like apes — a resemblance which 

 is remarkably increased when the anomalous variations in the 

 musculature are taken into account — as one of the clearest signs of 

 close taxonomic affinity. The differences which distinguish the 

 human hand, however primitive in appearance, are necessary adap- 

 tations connected with its perfection as a universal instrument. 



There seems to be an increasing tendency on the part of many 

 modern biologists to seek for the origin of any particular species, 

 not in the vicinity of its closest existing relatives, but in some 

 remote extinct ancestor ; and as a consequence we may watch in 

 process of growth a tree of life which for the greater part is a pure 

 product of the imagination. 



After admitting that Man may be traced to a primitive ancestor 

 which is common to him and to all the man-like apes, we are next 

 asked to believe that this ancestor was derived from another still 

 more primitive, which was common to it and to the lower apes. Nor 

 does the process stop there — a long procession of such ancestors, 

 each embodying some human characteristic, stands behind. Thus 

 Dr. W. Wiedersheim l in his latest work remarks : — 



' The scientific results of the last few years have revealed the surprising fact 

 that in tracing out this path (of human development) we must not confine our- 

 selves to the line of the Primates. On the contrary, many definite characters 

 of a very primitive nature clearly indicate that the human genealogy, that is 

 the genealogy of the Primates in general, dates from a stupendously remote 

 period, in fact that its roots must lie much deeper than is generally supposed 

 (in the case of many mammals lower in the scale than Man). Although so 

 far we have failed to discover conclusive evidence of the existence of pre- 

 Pleistocene man, yet Tertiary man is a necessary. postulate. Indeed, I am 

 firmly convinced that, not only in the Tertiary, but in much earlier geolo- 

 gical periods, possibly even in the Palaeozoic Era, lower forms were in 

 existence which had already taken the path of development peculiar to the 

 Primates.' 



Thus, as a mere article of faith, the ancestral series of the Primates 

 is carried through the lower mammals into the Eeptilian phylum ; 

 nor does there appear to be any reason why we should stop at this 

 point; the same logical process consistently carried out will lead 



Der Bau des Menschen ' Tubingen, 1908, p. 275. 





