224 
COMPARATIVE ZOOLOGY. 
to say precisely what shall guide us in assorting living 
forms into high and low. Shall we make structure the 
criterion of rank? Plainly the simple Jelly-fish is be¬ 
neath complicated Man. An ounce of muscle is worth a 
pound of protoplasm, and a grain of nervous matter is of 
more account than a ton of flesh. The intricate and fin¬ 
ished build of the Horse elevates him immeasurably above 
the stupid Snail. The repetition of similar parts, as in the 
Worm, is a sign of low life. So also a prolonged posterior 
is a mark of inferiority, as the Lobsters are lower than the 
Crabs, Snakes than Lizards, Monkeys than Apes. The 
possession of a head distinct from the region behind 
it is a sign of power. And in proportion as the fore¬ 
limbs are used for head purposes, the animal ascends 
the scale: compare the Whale, Horse, Cat, Monkey, and 
Man. 
But shall the Fish, never rising above the “ monotony 
of its daily swim,” be allowed to outrank the skilful Bee? 
Shall the brainless, sightless, almost heartless Amphioxus, 
a Vertebrate, be allowed to stand nearer to Man than the 
Ant? What is the possession of a backbone to intelli¬ 
gence? Ho good reason can be given why we might not 
be just as intelligent beings if we carried, like the Insect, 
our hearts in our backs and our spinal cords in our breasts. 
.So far as its activity is concerned, the brain may be as ef¬ 
fective if spread out like a map as packed into its present 
shape. Even animals of the same type, as Vertebrates, 
cannot be.ranked according to complexity. For while 
Mammals, on the whole, are superior to Birds, Birds to 
Reptiles, and Reptiles to Fishes, they are not so in every 
respect. Man himself is not altogether at the head of 
creation. We carry about in our bodies embryonic struct¬ 
ures. That structural affinity and vital dignity are not 
always parallel may be seen by comparing an Australian 
and an Englishman. 128 
