Archeology and Anthropology. 661 
(unpublished) and of the writer of the present review.' He 
ecides in favor of the former. 
The probability of the origin of man directly from Anthropoid 
apes, as asserted by Heckel (monophyletic) and Vogt (polyphy- 
letic), or from Lemurs direct (the opinion advanced by Cope) is 
then discussed, and M. Topinard concludes that neither hypothesis 
can be maintained, in view of the structure of the posterior foot. 
He does not think that the ambulatory hind-foot of man could 
- have been derived from the prehensile hind-foot of the other 
quadrumana, and he therefore traces the origin of Homo to a 
common type in which the prehensile character of that foot has not 
yet been developed. This is the genus Phenacodus, or some alli 
form of the Condylarthra. He combats successfully the opinion 
that the monkeys and man have been derived from Ungulates, in 
the restricted sense in which that term has been used by some 
family Adapide the transition is very slight, provided that the latter 
pi the posterior foot in that family is not prehensile. The 
character of such importance that it need be much considered in 
1 American Naturalist, 1885: ‘‘ Origin of the Fittest,” 1887. 
