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 
assume the reciprocal consanguinity of the apes, the 
common 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 espe- 
cially, it is almost as distinct as in man. 
Lucid, the anatomist renowned for his careful measure- 
ments 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 sphe- 
noid bones, lie almost in a line, whereas in man there 
