1 74 THE SPEECH OF MONKEYS." 



are known; and since I have actually learned 

 from a monkey a certain sound having a certain 

 value and meaning a certain thing, and by re- 

 peating that sound to a monkey of the same 

 species have- met with uniform results, have un- 

 derstood him and been understood by him, no 

 argument could be so potent as to cause me to 

 believe that this was accident. I am aware that 

 coincidents occur, but when they become the 

 rule instead of the exception, they are no longer 

 mere coincidents, but are the normal state of 

 things. 



In conclusion, I would say that since the 

 sounds uttered by monkeys perform all that 

 speech performs, is made of the same material, 

 prodiiced by the same means, acts to the same 

 ends and through the same media, it is as near 

 an approach to speech as the mental operations 

 by which it is produced are an approach to 

 thought. If it can be shown that these mental 

 feats are not thought, the same process of reason- 

 ing could show that these sounds are not speech. 

 If man derived his other faculties from such an 

 ancestry, may not his speech have been acquired 

 from such a source ? If the prototype of man has 



