MAN AND APES. 



289 



This comparison has been admirably conducted by 

 Huxley and Broca.*" The latter has set himself the 

 task of investigating, solely as a descriptive anatomist 

 and zoologist, regardless of all dispute as to principle, 

 and undisturbed by the doctrine of Descent, whether the 

 anatomical constitution of man, as compared with that 

 of the ape, justifies, on general zoological principles, the 

 union of the two in a single order — Primates. Huxley 

 proves that the anthropomorphous apes (gibbon, chim- 

 panzee, orang, gorilla) differ from the lower apes much 

 more than from man; and that if we are obliged to as- 

 sume the reciprocal consanguinity of the apes, the com- 

 mon derivation of the anthropomorphous apes and man 

 is at least equally natural. 



Between the peripheral members of the systematic 

 groups of monkeys — for instance, between the American 

 Sahuis and the Old- World Pavians and Anthropomorpha 

 — notable differences exist in the constitution of the limbs 

 and other parts of the skeleton, together with the soft 

 parts belonging to them, in the muscles especially, as 

 well as in dentition and the structure of the brain. It 

 is false to call apes quadrumana, for within the order of 

 the apes the contrast between hand and foot makes its 

 appearance in its essential anatomical attributes, and in 

 the anthropomorphous apes, in the gorilla especially, it 

 is almost as distinct as in man. 



Luca, the anatomist renowned for his careful meas- 

 urements of the cranium, imagines that he has discerned 

 a highly important demarcation between man and the 

 ape. In the ape, the three bones forming the axis of 

 the skull, the basi-occipital bone, and the two sphenoid 

 bones, lie almost in a line, whereas in man there is a 



