Fig. 276—The white-nosed ape (Cercopithecus petaurista).
Next to the lemurs come the true apes (Simiæ), the twenty-sixth stage in our ancestry. It has been beyond question for some time now that the apes approach nearest to man in every respect of all the animals. Just as the lowest apes come close to the lemurs, so the highest come next to man. When we carefully study the comparative anatomy of the apes and man, we can trace a gradual and uninterrupted advance in the organisation of the ape up to the purely human frame, and, after impartial examination of the “ape problem” that has been discussed of late years with such passionate interest, we come infallibly to the important conclusion, first formulated by Huxley in 1863: “Whatever systems of organs we take, the comparison of their modifications in the series of apes leads to the same result: that the anatomic differences that separate man from the gorilla and chimpanzee are not as great as those that separate the gorilla from the lower apes.” Translated into phylogenetic language, this “pithecometra-law,” formulated in such masterly fashion by Huxley, is quite equivalent to the popular saying: “Man is descended from the apes.”
In the very first exposition of his profound natural classification (1735) Linné placed the anthropoid mammals at the head of the animal kingdom, with three genera: man, the ape, and the sloth. He afterwards called them the “Primates”—the “lords” of the animal world; he then also separated the lemur from the true ape, and rejected the sloth. Later zoologists divided the order of Primates. First the Gottingen anatomist, Blumenbach, founded a special order for man, which he called Bimana (“two-handed”); in a second order he united the apes and lemurs under the name of Quadrumana (“four-handed”); and a third order was formed of the distantly-related Chiroptera (bats, etc.). The separation of the Bimana and Quadrumana was retained by Cuvier and most of the subsequent zoologists. It seems to be extremely important, but, as a matter of fact, it is totally wrong. This was first shown in 1863 by Huxley, in his famous Man’s Place in Nature. On the strength of careful comparative anatomical research he proved that the apes are just as truly “two-handed” as man; or, if we prefer to reverse it, that man is as truly four-handed as the ape. He showed convincingly that the ideas of hand and foot had been wrongly defined, and had been improperly based on physiological instead of morphological grounds. The circumstance that we oppose the thumb to the other four fingers in our hand, and so can grasp things, seemed to be a special distinction of the hand in contrast to the foot, in which the corresponding great toe cannot be opposed in this way to the others. But the apes can grasp with the hind-foot as well as the fore, and so were regarded as quadrumanous. However, the inability to grasp that we find in the foot of civilised man is a consequence of the habit of clothing it with tight coverings for thousands of years. Many of the bare-footed lower races of men, especially among the negroes, use the foot very freely in the same way as the hand. As a result of early habit and continued practice, they can grasp with the foot (in climbing trees, for instance) just as well as with the hand. Even new-born infants of our own race can grasp very strongly with the great toe, and hold a spoon with it as firmly as with the hand. Hence the physiological distinction between hand and foot can neither be pressed very far, nor has it a scientific basis. We must look to morphological characters.
Fig. 277—The drill-baboon (Cynocephalus leucophæus).
(From Brehm.)
As a matter of fact, it is possible to draw such a sharp morphological distinction—a distinction based on anatomic structure—between the fore and hind extremity. In the formation both of the bony skeleton and of the muscles that are connected with the hand and foot before and behind there are material and constant differences; and these are found both in man and the ape. For instance, the number and arrangement of the smaller bones of the hand and foot are quite different. There are similar constant differences in the muscles. The hind extremity always has three muscles (a short flexor muscle, a short extensor muscle, and a long calf-muscle) that are not found in the fore extremity. The arrangement of the muscles also is different before and behind. These characteristic differences between the fore and hind extremities are found in man as well as the ape. There can be no doubt, therefore, that the ape’s foot deserves that name just as much as the human foot does, and that all true apes are just as “bimanous” as man. The common distinction of the apes as “quadrumanous” is altogether wrong morphologically.
But it may be asked whether, quite apart from this, we can find any other features that distinguish man more sharply from the ape than the various species of apes are distinguished from each other. Huxley gave so complete and demonstrative a reply to this question that the opposition still raised on many sides is absolutely without foundation. On the ground of careful comparative anatomical research, Huxley proved that in all morphological respects the differences between the highest and lowest apes are greater than the corresponding differences between the highest apes and man. He thus restored Linné’s order of the Primates (excluding the bats), and divided it into three sub-orders, the first composed of the half-apes (Lemuridæ), the second of the true apes (Simiadæ), the third of men (Anthropidæ).
But, as we wish to proceed quite consistently and impartially on the laws of systematic logic, we may, on the strength of Huxley’s own law, go a good deal farther in this division. We are justified in going at least one important step farther, and assigning man his natural place within one of the sections of the order of apes. All the features that characterise this group of apes are found in man, and not found in the other apes. We do not seem to be justified, therefore, in founding for man a special order distinct from the apes.