GENESIS OF MAN. 59 



four incisors, two canine or eye-teeth, and ten molars or grinders, 

 in each jaw. 



The Catarrhinae are further divided into two groups of tail- 

 bearing and tailless apes. The tail-bearing apes have most proba- 

 bly been developed directly from the lemurs, and therefore con- 

 stitute the nineteenth stage in the descent of man. Our ancient 

 forefathers in this group were perhaps similar to the now living 

 Semno pith ecus, from which the tailless apes, forming the twentieth 

 stage, were differentiated chiefly by the loss of their tail. These 

 latter bear the greatest resemblance to man, and are called anthro- 

 poid apes, constituting the family Anthropoides. The family con- 

 sists, as far as known, of but four genera, Hylobates, the Gibbon 

 of southern Asia ; Satyrus, the Orang of Borneo and the Sunda 

 Islands ; Engeco, the Chimpanzee of southern and western Africa, 

 and the Gorilla, first discovered by the missionary Wilson, in 1847, 

 on the Gaboon River, western Africa, and afterwards by Du 

 Chaillu. The Gorilla is the largest of known apes, and exceeds 

 the human stature. 



To none of these four anthropoid apes, however, can we point 

 as being in all respects the nearest to man. The Gibbon resembles 

 man most in the form of the thorax, the Orang in the development 

 of the brain, the Chimpanzee in the formation of the skull, and 

 the Gorilla in the differentiation of hand and foot, and also in the 

 relative length of the arms. It is therefore evident that man can- 

 not have descended directly from any known living ape. His real 

 progenitor must, in a greater or less degree, have combined all 

 these characters, and has no doubt been long extinct. It is from 

 paleontology that we alone hope for aid in the discovery of this 

 "missing link." The fossil remains of this extinct genus {Pithecan- 

 thropus) may be looked for with some confidence in the still little 

 known region of south-eastern Asia, the Malay Archipelago, and 

 throughout central and western Africa. 



The comparative anatomy and osteology of these four genera 

 of anthropoid apes have been exhaustively studied by Carl Vogt, 

 Huxley, and others. The final conclusion to which Huxley comes, 

 and which he expresses in the most unqualified and emphatic 

 manner, is that no matter what system of organs we take, a com- 

 parison of the modifications in the Catarrhine series leads to one 

 and the same result : that the anatomical differences that distin- 



