662 
A Brace of Paradoxes. 
[^November, 
tive ! Now many of our readers are doubtless aware that 
scientific notions concerning the relative rank of different 
forms in the animal kingdom are at present in a very un- 
settled condition. The old view that animals rise succes- 
sively higher and higher as they approach nearer and nearer 
to man has been challenged in several quarters. It is in- 
convenient for those who wish to establish a want of 
continuity between man and the rest of the animal kingdom. 
Thus an eminent biologist who maintains this view, pro- 
nounces the cats “ the very flower and culmination of the 
Mammalian animal tree,” and declares that man, “ con- 
sidered merely in his capacity as an animal, has a very 
definite place in such a scheme, but it is by no means certain 
that his place is at its summit and again, “ the close bodily 
resemblance of the apes to man gives them no just claim to 
a rank above that of the Carnivora, since such a claim only 
reposes on their bodily resemblance to ourselves.” Thus 
Professor Minot is not entirely taking a new departure. He 
maintains that the measure of biological rank is the degree 
of specialization exhibited by all the organs, taken col- 
lectively. The measure of specialization he finds in 
embryology, “ which shows in earlier stages simplicity and 
uniformity of structure, which in later stages is replaced by 
complexity.” We quote here the author’s own words 
because we shall have shortly to turn them against himself. 
He declares that “ specialization may be exaggerated in one 
or several organs without the animal attaining a high rank 
as a whole, and this he pronounces to be the case in man. 
In the human body he admits certain high differentiations, 
to wit, “ in the brain, in the changes induced by, or accom- 
panying, the upright position, and in the opposability of the 
thumbs to the fingers.” In these points he admits man to 
be “ more highly specialized than any other animal.” 
On the other hand he finds in man, “ instances of a still 
more striking inferiority.” His senses are less acute than 
those of many animals; “ he has neither the keen vision of 
the falcon nor the delicate scent of the dog.” On this we 
may remark that though the sight of birds of prey is tele- 
scopic, yet that in them nice discrimination of colour is not 
proven. Man cannot have so acute a scent as the dog, 
because the development of the brain leaves little room for 
the olfadtory lobe. Prof. Minot goes on to assert that man’s 
teeth are of a “ low mammalian type,” and that “ similar 
inferiority is shown by his limbs, since they are little 
modified from the primitive (embryonic) form, preserving 
the full number of five digits. In respedt of these members 
