8-1 
THE GEOLOGIST. 
gists." Professor Oweu'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 Dryopi- 
thecus, compared with the Chimpanzees, Grorillas, 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 
Sylohates 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 I>ryaj)ithecuSf 
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 Hylohatei 
to the tailed monkeys, are at present unknown in respect of the 
Dryopithecusy 
As regards FUopithecus, no doubts can exist as to its affinity -with 
Hylohates. 
AYe have thus amongst the fossil species of Simiadcs no form suffi- 
ciently allied to Man to have served as his ancestor ; no form which 
approaches so near to him as the Gorilla or Chimpanzee. 
The theory 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 each particular individual is obvious. Knowledge is denied to 
each of us how we came, from what we came, whence we came, 
whither we go. The feeble and obscure light of analogy seems to in- 
dicate an origin analogous to that of all animals — the cell. Through 
* Comptes Rendus Acad. Sciences, Paris, vol. xliii. 
t Owen on Gorilla, Pi-oc. Zool. Soc. 1859. 
