Thirty-second Meeting of the British Association. 441 



l^osteiior lobes of his brain, the existence of a posterior cornu in the lat- 



coinu, — in a distinct sub-kingdom, which he had called Archencephala, 

 between whicli and the other UK-mbers of the niariimaha the distinctions 



estimation, was a far better guide in classifying animals than the foot; 

 but the same difi'erence that existed between their brains was also observ- 

 able between their feet. The lecturer referred to a diairram which renre- 



sented t 



i aye-aye, 



^rod sufficiently great to elevate man from the sub-kingdom to \ 



Prof Huxley observed that the paper just laid before the Sectio 

 peared to him in no way to represent tfie real nature of the problem i 

 discussion. lie would therefore put that problem in another way. 



question of fact was, what are the structural ditierences between 

 and the highest apes? — the question of reasoning, what is the systei 

 value of those differences ? Several years ago. Prof. Owen had i 

 i respecting the differences which obtained bet 





had not entirely borne oi 



Prof Huxley discussed t 



apes, and showed that the same argument could be based upon them i 



on the brain : that argument being, that the structural differences betwee 



man and the highest ape are of the same order and only slightly differei 



'n degree from those which separate the apes one from another. In coi 



elusion, he expressed his opii 

 present. In his opinion, the d 



intellectual. Prof Rolleston said he would try and supply the members 

 of the Association with the points of positive difference between the 

 human and the ape brain. For doing this we had been abundantly 

 shown that the hippocampus minor and the posterior lobe were insufficient. 

 As differentive, they must be given up at last But as much had recently 

 been done for the descriptive anatomy of the biain by Gratiolet and oth- 

 ers as had been done for astronomy by Stokes and Adams, for language 

 by Max Miiller, and that this had been ignored in this discussion was 

 little creditable to British science. This analysis of the brain's structure 

 had established as differentive between man and the ape four great differ- 

 ences — two morphological, two quantitative. The two quantitative are the 



