OCR Text |
Show 19u 'FHE DESCENT OF MAN. PART I. Simiaclre. This family is divided by almost all naturalists into the Catarhine group, or Old World monkeys, all of which are characterised (as their name expresses) by the peculiar structure of their nostrils and by havi.ng four premolars in each jaw ; and into the Pln.tyrhme ()'roup or New vVorld monkeys (including t\VO very distinct sub-groups), all of which are characterised by differently-constructed nostrils and by having six premolars in each jaw. Some other small differences might be mentit:med. Now man unquestionably belongs in his dentition, in the structure of his nostrils, and some other respects, to the Catarhine or Old World division ; nor does he resemble the Platyrhines more closely than the Catarhines in any characters, excepting in a few of not much importance and apparently of an adaptive nature. Therefore it would be against all probability to suppose that some ancient New W or1d species had varied, and had thus produced a man-like creature with all the distinctive characters proper to the Old vVorld division; losing at the same time all its own distinctive characters. There can consequently hardly be a doubt that man is an offshoot from the Old vVorld Simian stem; and that under a genealogical point of view, he must be classed with the Catarhine division.U The anthropomorphous apes, namely the gorilla., chimpanzee, orang, and hylobates, are separated as a distinct sub-group from the other Old World monkeys by most naturalists. I am aware that Gratiolet, relying on the structure of the brain, does not admit the exist- 11 This is nearly the same classification as that provisionally adopted by Mr. St. George 1\'livart ('Transact. Philosoph. Soc.' 1867, p. 300), who, after separating the Lemuridoo, divides the remainder of the Primates into the Hominidoo, the Simiadoo answering to the Catarhi11es, the Cebidoo, and the Hapalidoo,-these two latter groups answering to the Platyrhines. OHar. VI. AFFINITIES AND GENEALOGY. 197 ence of this sub-group, and no doubt it is a broken one; thus the orang, as l\Ir. St. G. Mivart remarks 12 " is one of the most peculiar and aberrant forms to be "' found in the Order." The remaining, non-anthropomorphous, Old World monkeys, are again divided by some naturaysts in~o two or ~hree smaller sub-groups; the genus Semnop1thecus, With its peculiar sacculated ~tornacb, being the type of one such sub-group. But 1t appears from M. Gaudry's wonderful discoveries in Attiea, that during the Miocene period a form existed there, which connected Semnopithecus and Macacus; and this probably illustrates the manner in which the {).ther and higher groups were once blended together. If the anthropomorphous apes be admitted to form a natural. sub-group, then as man agrees with them, not only 1~ all those characters which he possesses in com~on with the whole Catarhine group, but in other peculiar characters, such as the absence of a tail and of callosities an.d in general appearance, we may infer that some anCient. member of the anthropomorphous sub-group gave birth to man. It is not probable that a member of one of the other lower sub-groups s~ou1d, .through the law of analogous variation, have giVen r1se to a man-like cr~ature, resembling the higher .anthropomorphous ap~s m . so many respects. N 0 doubt man, m companson with most of his allies, has .undergone an extraordinary amount of modification -chiefly in cons~~uence of his greatly developed brai~ and erect positiOn ; nevertheless we should bear in mind that be "is but one of several ·exceptional forms "''·of Primates." 1 3 EYery naturalist, who believes in the principle of · 12 ' Transact. Zoolog. Soc.' vol. vi. 1867, p. 214. 13 Mr. St. G. :rt:livart, 'Transact. Phil. Soc.' 1867, ,p. 410. |