746 Analyses of Books. [December, 
etherodynamy, and life.” To the animal world he attributes, in 
addition, a fourth force — “ the animal mind.” Here, therefore, 
we have again another breach of continuity. The animal and 
the vegetable kingdoms are, according to M. de Quatrefages, 
not two stems from one common root, diverging more and widely 
from each other as they rise higher and higher, but two radically 
distinct totalities. It must even follow, on this view, that the 
lowest animal is superior to the highest plant. 
But we come now to a more important violation of the prin- 
ciple of continuity. The author asks “ Whether man should 
take his place in the animal kingdom ? a question which evidently 
leads to another : Is man distinguished from animals by im- 
portant and characteristic phenomena, absolutely unknown in 
the latter?” He continues, “ For more than forty years I have 
answered this question in the affirmative, and my convictions, 
tested by many controversies, are now stronger than ever.” Our 
reply is, “ For more than forty years we have answered this 
question in the negative, — even on the hypothesis of distinct 
creation, — and our convictions, tested by the examination of all 
arguments raised on either side, are now stronger than ever.” 
One of our chief grounds for rejecting the doctrine of a great 
gulf between man and his “ poor relations ” is that scarcely two 
of its numerous champions advance the same reasons for their 
faith, and that each industriously and learnedly refutes the argu- 
ments of his fellows. We simply pay them the compliment of 
accepting their critcisims whilst rejecting their dogmatic 
teaching. 
What is the evidence which our author advances in support of 
his assumption ? We cannot expect that the learned academician 
would fall into the gross error of seeking to establish his theory 
by anatomical and physiological considerations. He says “ It is 
neither in the material disposition nor in the action of his phy- 
sical organism that we must look for these phenomena. From 
this point of view man is neither more nor less than an animal.” 
Yet he makes afterwards certain remarks which can scarcely be 
brought into harmony with the great truth thus announced. For 
instance (p. 107) he tells us that “ in man the organs are so 
arranged that he is essentially a walker, while in apes they ne- 
cessitate his being a climber just as strongly.” But what weight 
can be assigned to such a characteristic ? In climbing and 
walking powers the apes vary greatly, and the gorilla, though he 
can climb, is much less arboreal and more terrestrial than the 
mias. Man, where circumstances permit it, is even yet an in- 
stinctive climber. 
M. de Quatrefages further declares “ Man also is evidently an 
exceptional or aberrant type among mammals. He alone is 
constructed for a vertical position ; he alone has true hands and 
feet.” The difference between the human and the simian type 
of hands and feet is so palpably one of mere degree that no ex- 
