OCR Text |
Show I98 THE DESCENT OF MAN. PART r. evolution, will grant that the two main divisions of the Simiadre, namely the Catarhine and Platyrhine mon-· keys, with their sub-groups, have all proceeded from some one extremely ancient progenitor. The early descendants of this progenitor, before they had diverged to any considerable extent from each other, would still have formed a single natural group ; but some of the species or incipient genera would have already begun to indicate by their diverging characters the future distinctive marks of the Catarhine and Platyrhine divisions. Hence the members of this supposed ancient group would not have been so uniform in their dentition or in the structure of their nostrils, as are the existing Catarhine monkeys in one way and the Platyrhines in another way, but would have resembled in this respect the allied Lemuridre which differ greatly from each, other in the form of their muzzles,14 and to an extraordinary degree in their dentition. The Catarhine and Platyrhine monkeys agree in a multitude of characters, as is shewn by their unquestionably belonging to one and the same Order. Themany characters which they possess in common can hardly have been independently acquired by so many distinct species; so that these characters must havebeen inherited. But an ancient form which possessed. marly characters common to the Catarhine and Platyrhine monkeys, and others in an intermediate condition, and some few perhaps distinct from those now present in either group, would undoubtedly have been ranked, if seen by a naturalist, as an ape or monkey. And asman under a genealogical point of view belongs to the , Catarhine or Old World stock, we must conclude, how-· 14 Messrs. Murie and Mivart on the Lemuroidea, 'Transact. Zoolog .. Soc.•· voL ¥ii. 1869, p. 5. CITAP. VI. AFFINITIES AND GENEALOGY. 199 ever much the conclusion may revolt our pride, that our. early ~rogenitors would have been properly thus designated. o But we must not fall into the error of supposing that the early progenitor of the whole Simian stock, including man, was identical with, or even closely resembled, any existing ape or monkey. On the Birthplace and Antiquity of Man.-We are naturally led to enquire where was the birthplace of ~an at that stage of descent when our progenitors diverged from the Catarhine stock. The fact that ~hey ~elonged to this stock clearly shews that they mhab~te~ the Old World ; but not Australia nor any oc~amc ~sla~d, ~s we may infer from the laws of geographiCal d1stnbut10n. In each great region of the world the living mammals are closely related to the extinct species o~ the same region. It is therefore probable that Afn~a was formerl.y inhabited by extinct apes closely alhed to the gonlla and chimpanzee ; and as these two species are now man's nearest allies, it is s?mewhat more probable that our early progenitors hved on the Afncan continent than elsewhere. But it is useless to speculate on this subject, for an ape nearly as lar~e as a man, namely the Dryopithecus of Lartet, whiCh was closely allied to the anthropomorphous. Hylobate.s, existed. in Europe during the Upper Mwcene periOd ; and smce so remote a period the. earth has certainly undergone many great revolutiOns, and there has been ample time for mio-ration on the largest scale. 0 15 Hackel has come to this same conclusion. See 'Ueber die Entst~ hung des ~e~schengeschlechts,' in Virchow's 'Sammlung. gemein. msse~. Vo~rage,. 1868~ s. 61. . Al~o his 'Natiirliche SchopfungsgeschiChte, 1868, m wh1ch he g~ves m detail his views on the genealogy of man. |