A History of Science — Volume 5

by Henry Smith Williams; Edward Huntington Williams

In the application of this relatively simple scheme, to be sure, no end of difficulties were encountered. Each higher animal is composed of so many members and organs, of such diverse variations, that naturalists could never agree among themselves as to just where a balance of affinities between resemblances and differences should be struck; whether, for example, a given species varied so much from the type species of a genus—say the genus Gothic house—as to belong properly to an independent genus—say Romanesque house; or whether, on the other hand, its divergencies were still so outweighed by its resemblances as to permit of its retention as an aberrant member of genus number one. Perpetual quibbling over these matters was quite the order of the day, no two authorities ever agreeing as to details of classification. The sole point of agreement was that preconceived types were in question—if only the zoologists could ever determine just what these types were. Meantime, the student who supposed classifications to be matters of moment, and who laboriously learned to label the animals and birds of his acquaintance with an authoritative Latin name, was perpetually obliged to unlearn what he had acquired, as a new classifier brought new resources of hair-splitting pursuit of a supposed type or ideal to bear on the subject. Where, for example, our great ornithologists of the early part of the century, such as Wilson and Audubon, had classed all our numerous hawks in a genus falco, later students split the group up into numerous genera—just how many it is impossible to say, as no two authorities agreed on that point. Wilson, could he have come back a generation after his death, would have found himself quite at a loss to converse with his successors about the birds he knew and loved so well, using their technical names—though the birds themselves had not changed.

Notwithstanding all the differences of opinion about matters of detail, however, there was, nevertheless, substantial agreement about the broader outlines of classifications, and it might fairly enough have been hoped that some day, when longer study had led to finer discrimination, the mysteries of all the types of creation would be fathomed. But then, while this hope still seemed far enough from realization, Charles Darwin came forward with his revolutionizing doctrine—and the whole time-honored myth of "types" of creation vanished in thin air. It became clear that the zoologists had been attempting a task utterly Sisyphean. They had sought to establish "natural groups" where groups do not exist in nature. They were eagerly peering after an ideal that had no existence outside their imagination. Their barriers of words could not be made to conform to barriers of nature, because in nature there are no barriers.

What, then, was to be done? Should the whole fabric of classification be abandoned? Clearly not, since there can be no science without classification of facts about labelled groupings, however arbitrary. Classifications then must be retained, perfected; only in future it must be remembered that any classification must be more or less arbitrary, and in a sense false; that it is at best only a verbal convenience, not the embodiment of a final ideal. If, for example, we consider the very "natural" group of birds commonly called hawks, we are quite justified in dividing this group into several genera or minor groups, each composed of several species more like one another than like the members of other groups of species—that is, of other genera. But in so doing we must remember that if we could trace the ancestry of our various species of hawks we should find that in the remote past the differences that now separate the groups had been less and less marked, and originally quite non-existent, all the various species having sprung from a common ancestor. The genera of to-day are cousin-groups, let us say; but the parents of the existing species were of one brood, brothers and sisters. And what applies to the minor groups called genera applies also, going farther into the past, to all larger groups as well, so that in the last analysis, all existing creatures being really the evolved and modified descendants of one primordial type, it may be said that all animate creation is but a single kind. In this broadened view the details of classification ceased to have the importance once ascribed to them, and the quibblings of the classifiers seem amusing rather than serious. Yet the changed point of view left the subject by no means barren of interest. For if the multitudinous creatures of the living world are but diversified twig-lets of a great tree of ascent, spread by branching from a common root, at least it is worth knowing what larger branches each group of twiglets—representing a genus, let us say—has sprung from. In particular, since the topmost twig of the tree is represented by man himself and his nearest relatives, is it of human interest to inquire just what branches and main stems will be come upon in tracing back the lineage of this particular offshoot. This attempt had, perhaps, no vast, vital importance in the utilitarian sense in which these terms are oftenest used, but at least it had human interest. Important or otherwise, it was the task that lay open to zoology, and apparently its only task, so soon as the Darwinian hypothesis had made good its status. The man who first took this task in hand, and who has most persistently and wisely followed it, and hence the man who became the recognized leader in the field of the new zoology, was, as I have already intimated, Professor Haeckel. His hypothetical tree of man's lineage, tracing the ancestry of the human family back to the earliest geological times and the lowest orders of beings, has been familiar now for just a third of a century. It was at first confessedly only a tentative genealogy, with many weak limbs and untraced branches. It was perfected from time to time, as new data came to hand, through studies of paleontology, of embryology, and of comparative anatomy. It will be of interest, then, to inquire just what is its status today and to examine briefly Professor Haeckel's own most recent pronouncement regarding it.

Perhaps it is not worth our while here to go too far down towards the root of the genealogical tree to begin our inquiry. So long as it is admitted that the remote ancestry is grounded in the lowest forms of organisms, it perhaps does not greatly matter to the average reader that there are dark places in the lineage during the period when our ancestor had not yet developed a spinal column—when, in other words, he had not attained the dignity of the lowest fish. Neither, perhaps, need we mourn greatly that the exact branch by which our reptilian or amphibian non-mammalian ancestor became the first and most primitive of mammals is still hidden in unexplored recesses of early strata. The most patrician monarch of to-day would not be greatly disturbed as to just who were his ancestors of the days of the cave-dweller. It is when we come a little nearer home that the question begins to take on its seemingly personal significance. Questions of grandparents and great-grandparents concern the patrician very closely. And so all along, the question that has interested the average casual investigator of the Darwinian theory has been the question as to man's immediate ancestor—the parents and grandparents of our race, so to speak. Hence the linking of the word "monkey" with the phrase "Darwinian theory" in the popular mind; and hence, also, the interpretation of the phrase "missing link" in relation to man's ancestry, as applying only to our ancestor and not to any other of the gaps in the genealogical chain.

What, then, is the present status of Haeckel's genealogical tree regarding man's most direct ancestor? Prom what non-human parent did the human race directly spring? That is a question that has proved itself of lasting, vital human interest. It is a question that long was answered only with an hypothesis, but which Professor Haeckel to-day professes to be able to answer with a decisive and affirmative citation not of theories but of facts. In a word, it is claimed that man's immediate ancestor is now actually upon record, that the much-heralded "missing link" is missing no longer. The principal single document, so to speak, on which this claim is based consists of the now famous skull and thigh-bone which the Dutch surgeon, Dr. Eugene Dubois, discovered in the year 1891 in the tertiary strata of the island of Java. Tertiary strata, it should be explained, had never hitherto yielded any fossils bordering on the human type, but this now famous skeleton was unmistakably akin to the human. The thigh in particular, taken by itself, would have been pronounced by any competent anatomist to be of human origin. Unquestionably the individual who bore it had been accustomed to take an erect attitude in walking. And yet the skull was far inferior in size and shape to that of any existing tribe of man—was, indeed, rather of a simian type, though, on the other hand, of about twice the capacity of any existing ape. In a word, it seemed clear that the creature whose part skeleton had been found by Dr. Dubois was of a type intermediate between the lowest existing man and the highest existing man-apes. It was, in short, the actual prototype of that hypothetical creature which Haeckel, in his genealogical tree, had christened pithecanthropus, the ape-man. As such it was christened Pithecanthropus erectus, the erect ape-man.

Now the discovery of this remarkable form did not make Professor Haeckel any more certain that some such form had existed than he was thirty years before when he christened a hypothetical subject with the title now taken by a tangible claimant. But, after all, there is something very taking about a prophecy fulfilled, and so the appearance of Pithecanthropus erectus created no small sensation in the zoological world. He was hailed by Haeckel and his followers as the veritable "missing link," and as such gained immediate notoriety. But, on the other hand, a reactionary party at once attacked him with the most bitter animadversions, denouncing him as no true ancestor of man with a bitterness that is hard to understand, considering that the origin of man from some lower form has long ceased to be matter of controversy. "Pithecanthropus is at least half an ape," they cried, with the clear implication of "anything but an ape for an ancestor!"

I confess I have always found it hard to understand just why this peculiar aversion should always be held against the unoffending ape tribe. Why it would not be quite as satisfactory to find one's ancestor in an ape as in the alternative lines of, for example, the cow, or the hippopotamus, or the whale, or the dog has always been a mystery. Yet the fact of this prejudice holds. Probably we dislike the ape because of the very patency of his human affinities. The poor relation is objectionable not so much because he is poor as because he is a relation. So, perhaps, it is not the apeness, so to speak, of the ape that is objectionable, but rather the human-ness. In any event, the aversion has been matter of common notoriety ever since the Darwinian theory became fully accepted; it showed itself now with renewed force against poor pithecanthropus. A half-score of objections were launched against him. It is needless to rehearse them now, since they were all met valiantly, and the final verdict saw the new-comer triumphantly ensconced in man's ancestral halls as the oldest sojourner there who has any title to be spoken of as "human." He is only half human, to be sure—a veritable ape-man, as his name implies—but exactly therein lies his altogether unique distinction. He is the embodiment of that "missing link" whose nonappearance had hitherto given so much comfort to the sceptical.

Perhaps some crumbs of comfort may be found by the reactionists in the fact that it is not held by Professor Haeckel, or by any other competent authority, that the link which pithecanthropus supplies welds man directly with any existing man-ape—with gorilla, chimpanzee, or orang. It is held that these highest existing apes are side branches, so to say, of the ancestral tree, who developed, in their several ways, contemporaneously with our direct ancestors, but are not themselves directly of the royal line. The existing ape that has clung closest to the direct ancestral type of our own race, it appears, is the gibbon—a creature far less objectionable in that rôle because of the very paucity of his human characteristics, as revealed to the casual observer. Gibbon-like fossil apes are known, in strata representing a time some millions of years antecedent to the epoch of pithecanthropus even, which are held to be directly of the royal line through which pithecanthropus, and the hypothetical Homo stupidus, and the known Homo neanderthalensis, and, lastly, proud Homo sapiens himself have descended. Thus Professor Haeckel is able to make the affirmation, as he did recently before the International Zoological Congress in Cambridge, that man's line of descent is now clearly traced, from a stage back in the Eocene time when our ancestor was not yet more than half arrived to the ape's estate, down to the time of true human development. "There no longer exists," he says, "a 'missing link.' The phyletic continuity of the primate stem, from the oldest lemurs down to man himself, is an historical fact."

It should, perhaps, be added that the force of this rather startling conclusion rests by no means exclusively upon the finding of pithecanthropus and the other fossils, nor indeed upon any paleontological evidence whatever. These, of course, furnish data of a very tangible and convincing kind; but the evidence in its totality includes also a host of data from the realms of embryology and comparative anatomy—data which, as already suggested, enabled Professor Haeckel to predicate the existence of pithecanthropus long in advance of his actual discovery. Whether the more remote gaps in the chain of man's ancestry will be bridged in a manner similarly in accord with Professor Haeckel's predications, it remains for future discoveries of zoologist and paleontologist to determine. In any event, the recent findings have added an increment of glory to that philosophical zoology of which Professor Haeckel is the greatest living exponent.

This tracing of genealogies is doubtless the most spectacular feature of the new zoology, yet it must be clear that the establishment of lines of evolution is at best merely a preparation for the all-important question, Why have these creatures, man included, evolved at all? That question goes to the heart of the new zoological philosophy. A partial answer was, of course, given by Darwin in his great doctrine of natural selection. But this doctrine, while explaining the preservation of favorable variations, made no attempt to account for the variations themselves. Professor Haeckel's contribution to the subject consisted in the revival of the doctrine of Lamarck, that individual variations, in response to environmental influences, are transmitted to the offspring, and thus furnish the material upon which, applying Darwin's principle, evolution may proceed. This Lamarck-Haeckel doctrine was under a cloud for a recent decade, during the brief passing of the Weismannian myth, but it has now emerged, and stands as the one recognized factor in the origin of those variations whose cumulative preservation through natural selection has resulted in the evolution of organic forms.