LYELL ON THE ANTIQUITY OP MAN. 
213 
perhaps the most satisfactory portion of the work, hut they hardly 
come within the scope of this Review. As indeed no traces of Man 
have yet been found in any strata of the glacial period, we might 
perhaps regard this as an unnecessary digression. Sir Charles, 
however, brings these facts prominently forward, because “ they 
“ enlarge at the same time our conception of the antiquity, not 
“ only of the living species of animals and plants, but of their 
“ present geographical distribution, and throw light on the chrono- 
“ logical relations of these species to the earliest date yet ascertained 
“ for the existence of the human race. That date, it will be seen, is 
“ very remote if compared to the times of history and tradition, yet 
“ very modern if contrasted with the length of time during which all 
“ the living testacea, and even many of the mammalia, have in- 
“ habited the globe.” 
The treatise on the Origin of Species is also very ably written, 
and we were specially struck with the comparison drawn by Sir Charles 
between the Origin of Species and the Origin of Languages. We are, 
however, unable to discover that Sir Charles anywhere expresses his 
own opinion. The strongest passage we have been able to find is the 
following: —“ Yet we ought by no means to undervalue the imp or t- 
“ ance of the step which will have been made, should it ever become 
“ highly probable that the past changes of the organic world have 
“ been brought about by the subordinate agency of such causes as 
“ Variation and Natural Selection.” Even the Bishop of Oxford might 
agree to this sentence, but we can-hardly believe that it expresses 
Sir Charles Lyell’s real opinions, as the whole tenor of his argument 
is in favour of Mr. Darwin’s theory. We will not now, however, 
enter into this important question, nor will we discuss Sir Charles’ 
views on man’s place in nature. They will naturally come before us 
in our next number, when we shall have to consider Professor 
Huxley’s work on this subject. But with reference to the alleged 
differences between the human and simian brains, as the historical 
account of the controversy given by Sir C. Lyell has been attacked, 
we feel compelled to say, that in our opinion the statements made 
by Sir Charles are fully in accordance with the facts; and that in 
this matter he has only expressed the all but universal opinion of 
scientific anatomists both in this country and abroad. 
In the first part of the work Sir Charles brings together the 
different instances in which remains of men or of human weapons 
have been found, either associated with bones of extinct animals, or 
in situations implying great antiquity. 
The readers of this Journal will already be prepared for many 
of the facts and arguments here brought forward. The works of 
art in the Danish peat-bogs and Kjokkenmoddings; the wonderful 
Neanderthal skull; the Swiss Lake habitations; the cave of Au- 
rignac; the Greology of the Valley of the Somme; the Archaeology 
of North America—have all been fully treated of in our columns. 
We may fairly congratulate ourselves on the manner in which this 
