292 THE DOCTRINE OF DESCENT. 
the orang, 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 characters. 
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 condi- 
tion is by no means attained—he cannot divest himself 
of his acquired characters fixed by heredity ; nor can 
he exceed 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 progeni- 
tors, 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 
