81 



THE GEOLOGIST. 



gists." Professor Owen's examination however of the plates figured 

 in M. Lartet's memoir* has led him to a very different conclusion. 



Stress has been laid upon the inferior size of the canine in Bryopi- 

 thecus, compared with the Chimpanzees, Gorillas, and Orangs, as in- 

 dicating its affinity to man; but the inferior monkeys also often 

 exhibit this character, and " it is by no means to be trusted as sig- 

 nificant of true affinity, even supposing the sex of the fossil to be 

 known as being male. "t 



The characters in which Dryopitliecus approaches to the lower form 

 Hylohates are, — the cylindric form of the humerus ; the verticality of 

 the forepart of the jaw; the shape of the forepart of the coronoid 

 process, slightly convex forwards, causing the angle which it forms 

 with the alveolar border to be less open than in Man, the Gorilla, 

 and Chimpanzee^ and the mode in which the molar teeth are developed. 

 Professor Owen sums up by stating, — " There is no law of correla- 

 tion, by which, from the portion of jaw with teeth of the DryopithecuSj 

 can be deduced the shape of the nasal bones and orbits, the position 

 and plane of the occipital foramen, the presence of mastoid and vaginal 

 processes, or any other cranial characters determinative of affinity to 

 Man ; much less any ground for inferring the proportions of the 

 upper to the lower limbs, of the humerus to the ulna, of the pollux 

 to the manus, or the shape and development of the iliac bones. 

 All those characters which do determine the closer resemblance and 

 affinity of the genus Troglodytes to Man, and of the genus Hylohates 

 to tiie tailed monkeys, are at present unknown in respect of the 

 Dryojpitliecimr 



As regards Fliopitliecus, no doubts can exist as to its affinity with 

 Hylohates. 



AYe have thus amongst the fossil species of Simiadce no form suffi- 

 ciently allied to IMan to have served as his ancestor ; no form which 

 approaches so near to him as the Gorilla or Chimpanzee. 



The tlicory which would identify man as the descendant of any of 

 these existing species has been often and satisfactorily disproved. 



The analogy of the genesis of the whole human race to the genesis 

 of oacli particular individual is obvious. Knowledge is denied to 

 (\u*h of us how we came, from what we came, whence we came, 

 whil lirr we go. The feeble and obscure light of analogy seems to in- 

 dicate an origin analogous to tliat of all animals — the cell. Through 



* Comptcs Rciulus Ac.ul. Scirmv?. Fnris, vol. 

 t OwLMi on Gorilla, Proc. Zool. i^oc. 1859, 



