292 THE DOCTRINE OF DESCENT. 



for instance, are far more like those of man than of 

 the chimpanzee, and that the differences which exist can 

 at the most have the value of specific or generic char- 

 acters. 



The distance between the lower and higher apes is 

 far greater than between the latter and man; and if the 

 consanguinity of the entire apedom is decisive in favour 

 of Darwinistic views, there can be the less doubt of the 

 kindred connection of the Old- World apes to mankind. 

 But the form of the mature skull and of the dentition 

 (to lay a stress upon these organs), preclude the idea 

 that the direct ancestors of man are to be found among 

 the apes now living. The cheap jest, produced with so 

 much glee, of inquiring why we do not behold the in- 

 teresting spectacle of the transformation of a chimpanzee 

 into a man, or conversely, of a man by retrogression into 

 an orang, merely testifies the crudest ignorance of the 

 doctrine of Descent. Not one of these apes can revert 

 to the state of his primordial ancestors, because, except 

 by retrogression — by which a primordial condition is 

 by no means attained — he cannot divest himself of his 

 acquired characters fixed by heredity; nor can he ex- 

 ceed himself and become man; for man does not stand 

 in the direct line of development from the ape. The 

 development of the anthropoid apes has taken a lateral 

 course from the nearest human progenitors, and man 

 can as little be transformed into a gorilla as a squirrel 

 can be changed into a rat. Man's kinship with the apes 

 is, therefore, not impugned by the bestial strength of 

 the teeth of a male orang or gorilla, or by the crests 

 and protuberances on the skulls of these animals. A 

 renowned zoologist, one of the few who adhere to the 



