It is evident that in order correctly to determine Man’s position among the other terrestrial organisms we must, in the first place, follow the guidance of the natural system. We must endeavour to determine the position which belongs to Man in the natural system of animals as accurately and distinctly as possible. We shall then, if in fact the theory of descent be correct, be able from his position in the system to determine the real primary relationship, and the degree of consanguinity connecting Man with the animals most like him. The hypothetical pedigree of the human race will then follow naturally as the final result of this anatomical and systematic inquiry.

Now if, by means of comparative anatomy and ontogeny, we seek for man’s position in that Natural System of animals which formed the subject of the last two chapters, the incontrovertible fact will at once present itself to us, that man belongs to the tribe, or phylum, of the Vertebrata. Every one of the characteristics, which so strikingly distinguish all the Vertebrata from all Invertebrata, is possessed by him. It has also never been doubted that of all the Vertebrata the Mammals are most closely allied to Man, and that he possesses all the characteristic features distinguishing them from all other Vertebrata. If then we further carefully examine the three different main groups or sub-classes of Mammals—the inter-connections of which were discussed in our last chapter—there cannot be the slightest doubt that Man belongs to the Placentals, and shares with all other Placentals, the important characteristics which distinguish them from Marsupials and from Cloacals. Finally, of the two main groups of placental Mammals, the Deciduata and the Indeciduata, the group of Deciduata doubtless includes Man. For the human embryo is developed with a genuine decidua, and is thus absolutely distinguished from all the Indeciduata. Among the Deciduata we distinguish two legions, the Zonoplacentalia, with girdle-shaped placenta (Beasts of Prey and Pseudo-hoofed animals), and the Discoplacentalia, with disc-shaped placenta (all the remaining Deciduata). Man possesses a disc-shaped placenta, like all Discoplacentalia; and thus our next question must be, What is man’s position in this group?

In the last chapter we distinguished the following five orders of Discoplacentalia: (1) Semi-apes; (2) Rodents; (3) Insectivora; (4) Bats; (5) Apes. The last of these five orders, that of Apes, is, as every one knows, in every bodily feature far more closely allied to Man than the four others. Hence the only remaining question now is, whether, in the system of animals, Man is to be directly classed in the order of genuine Apes, or whether he is to be considered as the representative of a special sixth order of Discoplacentalia, allied to, but more advanced than, that of the Apes.

Linnæus in his system classed Man in the same order with genuine Apes, Semi-apes, and Bats, which he called Primates; that is, lords, as it were the highest dignitaries of the animal kingdom. But Blumenbach, of Göttingen, separated Man as a special order, under the name of Bimana, or two-handed, and contrasted him with the Apes and Semi-apes under the name of Quadrumana, or four-handed. This classification was also adopted by Cuvier and, consequently, by most subsequent zoologists. It was not until 1863 that Huxley, in his excellent work, the “Evidence as to Man’s Place in Nature,”[(26)] showed that this classification was based upon erroneous ideas, and that the so-called “four-handed” Apes and Semi-apes are “two-handed” as much as man is himself. The difference between the foot and hand does not consist in the physiological peculiarity that the first digit or thumb is opposable to the four other digits or fingers in the hand, and is not so in the foot, for there are wild tribes of men who can oppose the first or large toe to the other four, just as if it were a thumb. They can therefore use their “grasping foot” as well as a so-called “hinder hand,” like Apes. The Chinese boatmen row with this hinder hand, the Bengal workmen weave with it. The Negro, in whom the big toe is especially strong and freely moveable, when climbing seizes hold of the branches of the trees with it, just like the “four-handed” Apes. Nay, even the newly born children of the most highly developed races of men, during the first months of their life, grasp as easily with the “hinder hand” as with the “fore hand,” and hold a spoon placed in its clutch as firmly with their big toe as with the thumb! On the other hand, among the higher Apes, especially the gorilla, hand and foot are differentiated as in man. (Compare Plate [IV].)

The essential difference between hand and foot is therefore not physiological, but morphological, and is determined by the characteristic structure of the bony skeleton and of the muscles attached to it. The ankle-bones differ from the wrist-bones in arrangement, and the foot possesses three special muscles not existing in the hand (a short flexor muscle, a short extensor muscle, and a long fibular muscle). In all these respects, Apes and Semi-apes entirely agree with man, and hence it was quite erroneous to separate him from them as a special order on account of the stronger differentiation of his hand and foot. It is the same also with all the other structural features by means of which it was attempted to distinguish Man from Apes; for example, the relative length of the limbs, the structure of the skull, of the brain, etc. In all these respects, without exception, the differences between Man and the higher Apes are less than the corresponding differences between the higher and the lower Apes. Hence Huxley, for reasons based on the most careful and most accurate anatomical comparisons, arrives at the extremely important conclusion—“Thus, whatever system of organs be studied, the comparison of their modifications in the Ape series leads to one and the same result, that the structural differences which separate Man from the Gorilla and Chimpanzee are not so great as those which separate the Gorilla from the lower Apes.” In accordance with this, Huxley, strictly following the demands of logic, classes Man, Apes, and Semi-apes in a single order, Primates, and divides it into the following seven families, which are of almost equal systematic value: (1) Anthropini (Man); (2) Catarrhini (genuine Apes of the Old World); (3) Platyrrhini (genuine American Apes); (4) Arctopitheci (American clawed Apes); (5) Lemurini (short-footed and long-footed Semi-apes, p. [255]); (6) Chiromyini (p. [256]); (7) Galeopithecini (Flying Lemurs, p. [256]).

SYSTEMATIC SURVEY
Of the Families and Genera of Apes.
Sections
of
Apes.		Families
of
Apes.		Genera
of
Apes.		Systematic Name
of
the Genera.
I. APES OF THE NEW WORLD (Hesperopitheci), OR FLAT-NOSED APES (Platyrrhini).
A. Platyrrhini
with claws
Arctopitheci

I. Silky apes
Hapalida

1.Brush ape1.Midas
2.Lion ape2.Jacchus
B. Platyrrhini
with blunt
nails
Dysmopitheci

II. Flat-nosed,
without prehensile
tail
Aphyocerca

3.Squirrel ape3.Chrysothrix
4.Leaping ape4.Callithrix
5.Nocturnal ape5.Nyctipithecus
6.Tail ape6.Pithecia
III. Flat-nosed,
with prehensile
tail
Labidocerca

7.Rolling ape7.Cebus
8.Climbing ape8.Ateles
9.Woolly ape9.Lagothrix
10.Howling ape10.Mycetes
II. APES OF THE OLD WORLD (Heopitheci), OR NARROW-NOSED APES (Catarrhini).
C. Tailed
Catarrhini
Menocerca

IV. Tailed Catarrhini,
with
cheek-pouches
Ascoparea

11.Pavian11.Cynocephalus
12.Macaque12.Innus
13.Sea cat13.Cercopithecus
IV. Tailed Catarrhini,
without
cheek-pouches
Anasca

14.Holy ape14.Semnopithecus
15.Short ape15.Colobus
16.Nose ape16.Nasalis
D. Tailless
Catarrhini
Lipocerca

VI. Human apes
Anthropoides

17.Gibbon17.Hylobates
18.Orang-Outan18.Satyrus
19.Chimpanzee19.Engeco
20.Gorilla20.Gorilla
VII. Men
Erecti
(Anthropi)

21.Ape-like man,
or speechless man 		21.Pithecanthropus=(Alalus)
22.Talking man22.Homo

PEDIGREE OF MEN AND APES