Darwinism 2 5 



the Rhine. This was held to be the veritable missing 

 link between the higher apes and man. But Huxley, 

 that most accurate and honest of scientists, declared 

 it to be human, and Wright, an American, in " Man 

 and the Glacial Period," declared it to be a skull which 

 still has representatives among all nations, and as a 

 matter of fact was a close reproduction of that of 

 Bruce, the Scots king. As was said in an article in the 

 " Scotsman " of 22nd December, 1908, on this subject : 

 " This is, of course, very unpalatable news for us, and 

 just like the impudence of these Americans." 



Recently there has been discovered another of these 

 so-called links with our anthropoid ancestors at 

 Chapelle-aux-Saints in France. But the oldest re- 

 mains yet found cannot be said to be the precursor of 

 man ; they are only man himself. Such is the opinion 

 of all scientific men capable of judging, and as, accord- 

 ing to Darwin, there must have been millions upon 

 millions of intermediate forms bridging the abyss 

 between the anthropoid and the " genus homo 

 sapiens," are we not entitled to cry, " Lo ! where are 

 they ? " And the only answer to our enquiry is, 

 " No one knows." 



Professor Arthur Keith in the Hunterian lectures, 

 delivered at the Royal College of Surgeons, in dealing 

 with the evolution of man, says : "At what point of 

 geological history these two kinds of ' Man ' had been 

 evolved from a common stock there is as yet no 

 evidence, but a good deal of light can be thrown on 

 the problem by a study of the African anthropoids — 

 the gorilla and the chimpanzee. Although these 

 modern anthropoids did not stand in the way of human 

 descent, there could be no question that their ancestral 

 stock did, for the resemblance between man and the 

 African anthropoids were so many and so close that 

 they could only be explained by a common origin." 



