course, is quite absurd, as man could obviously not be descended from a form of life now living. The ape and the monkey family, together with man, are probably descended from some generalized ape-like form long since perished from the earth. They both may have a common ancestor: one is not descended from the other. The human species, or Hominidæ, is not descended from the Gorilla or the Chimpanzee, but the "ascent of the Hominidæ is in an independent line from some long since extinct generalized form, from which the other branches also spring in independent lines. All have some features in common, while each presents some special characters. The points of resemblance between the Hominidæ and the Simiidæ are far more numerous than between the Hominidæ and any other group." 2 Keane infers from this that the divergence of the higher groups took place in the sequence indicated in the following classification. For this reason the study of man from the physical side is confined to his relation to the higher apes.3

It has been customary in modern zoölogical classification to detach from the Class Mammals, the large and dispersed group of Apes and Half-Apes (Lemurs), to constitute the independent order of Primates, so named by Linné. Recent systematists divide the order into two suborders, Lemuroidea and Anthropoidea, and subdivide the Anthropoidea, the manlike forms, into five familiesHapalida, Cebida, Cercopithecida, Simiida, and Hominida (human species). The reasons for asserting that men are primates and are closely related to the Simiidæ, are, that part for part the skeletons, pelvis, ribs, hands, feet, spinal columns, teeth, and bones of the skull, are 2 Keane, A. H.-Ethnology, 1896, p. 19. 3 Ibid., p. 20.

4 Ibid., p. 17.

FIGURE 8. Hair-tracts on the Arms and Hands of Man, as compared with those on the Arms and Hands of the Chimpanzee.

the same in all fundamental regards. In all essential features the sets of bone parts are closely similar.5 Now if we turn to structures other than the skeleton, we find there are some remarkable similarities in certain minor details. For example, we think of hairiness of the apes as distinguishing them rather sharply from man, but in reality the whole of the human body is covered with hair, except the palms of the hands, the soles of the feet, and the backs of certain terminal joints; these same portions are hairless in apes. Moreover, the slant of the hair in the several regions of the body, notably on the arms, is the same that we observe in apes. In apes and man there is reminiscence of the ancestral functional tail-the coccyx, in fact, a reduced tail. Our ears are slightly, if at all movable, yet we retain in a vestigial condition the muscles which in some ancestor must have served to move the ears.8 The vermiform appendix is less developed in man than in the apes, and is relatively larger in the human foetus than in adult man. Moreover, at the inner angle of the human eye is a fold of tissue which has little or no meaning unless it be explained as a remnant of that third eyelid which in many lower vertebrates, for example, birds, is greatly developed and can be drawn over the whole eyeball inside the outer eyelids. Unless we regard these vestigial structures in man as the traces of an earlier condition through which our ancestors have passed, they have no intelligent meaning.

The study of embryology reveals many points of resemblance between the human embryo, in the earlier 5 Romanes, op. cit., pp. 74-93; Metcalf, op. cit., pp. 167-172.

6 See figure 8.

7 See figure 9.

8 See figure 10.

stages of its growth, and the embryos of a number of other vertebrates. Figure 11 shows how the embryo

FIGURE 9. Front View of Adult Human Sacrum, showing abnormal persistence of Vestigial Tail-muscles.

of man is closely related to the embryo of lower forms, where in stages I and II many features of the human embryo are reminiscent of its fishlike early ancestors. There is an epigram among zoologists that the individual climbs up its own genealogical tree. This bears, of course, only a general interpretation. Yet, there is lit