SYSTEM OF NATURE. 
25 
plied. Now supposing it to be clearly established, that 
these anthropoid monkeys or apes are structurally more 
similar to man than the American monkeys, the lemurs or 
the sloths,—is it not possible that they may constitute, to¬ 
gether with man, the central and normal group of all ani¬ 
mals ? It is not inconsistent with the views now defined 
to suppose a central and normal group of Primates, con¬ 
taining one normal and three abnormal forms. Man would 
of course be the centre, the “ heart’s core.” Some of the 
true Simiae would lead to Bradypus ; Macacus to Cebus; 
Papio to Lemur. Carrying the same idea still farther, — 
is not man himself divisible into four groups ? May we 
not place the Circassian in the centre, while the African 
approached Simia and Bradypus,—the Asiatic, Papio and 
Lemur,-— the American, Macacus and Cebus ? Those who 
take an interest in following out these analogies could 
scarcely fail of tracing some indications of the approaches 
here suggested. They might perchance find the wild, 
nocturnal, shrewd, daring, whooping, untiring Bed Indian 
represented by the Cebidae. The slow, feeble, heavy¬ 
lipped, patient, toil-enduring Negro in the chimpanzee. 
The sly, greedy, lecherous, vindictive and cruel Mongolian 
or Malay in the baboon. This is avowedly suggested only 
as hypothetical, but it may perhaps lead some truth-seek¬ 
ing naturalist to pursue the enquiry. 
This position of the true Simiae around the central and 
normal form of man, would make the Cebidae an abnormal 
group approaching the Ferae, a position certainly indicated 
by their enormous canine teeth : the transition from Papio 
and Inuus to the lemurs appears easy and natural; and 
that from Simia or Pithecus to the sloths is, I think, per¬ 
fectly obvious. It thus appears, that if driven from the 
