The Whence and the Whither of Man / A Brief History of His Origin and Development through Conformity to Environment; Being the Morse Lectures of 1895

by John M. Tyler

The pelvis is broad and comparatively shallow. The legs, especially the thighs, are long. The foot is long and strong, and rests its lower surface, not merely the outer margin as in apes, on the ground. The elastic arch of the instep must be excepted in the above description, and adds lightness and swiftness to his otherwise slow gait. The great toe is short and generally not opposable. The muscles of the leg are heavy and the knee-joint has a very broad articulating surface. But the great result of man's erect posture is that the hand is set free from the work of locomotion, and has become a delicate tactile and tool-using organ. The importance of this change we cannot over-estimate. The hand was the servant of the brain for trying all experiments. Had not our arboreal ancestors developed the hand for us we could never have invented tools nor used them if invented. And its reflex influence in developing the brain has been enormous. The arm is shorter and the hand smaller. The brain is absolutely and relatively large, and its surface greatly convoluted. This gives place for a large amount of "gray matter," whose functions are perception, thought, and will. For this gray matter forms a layer on the outside of the brain.

Thus, even anatomically, man differs from the anthropoid apes. His whole structure is moulded to and by the higher mental powers, so that he is the "Anthropos" of the old Greek philosophers, the being who "turns his face upward." Yet in all these anatomical respects some of the apes differ less from him than from the lower apes or "half apes." And every one of these can easily be explained as the result of progressive development and modification. Whoever will deny the possibility or probability of man's development from some lower form must argue on psychological, not on anatomical, grounds; and it grows clearer every day that even the former but poorly justify such a denial.

But it is interesting to note that no one ape most closely approaches man in all anatomical respects. Thus among the anthropoids the orang is perhaps most similar to man in cerebral structure, the chimpanzee in form of skull, the gorilla in feet and hands. No evolutionist would claim that any existing ape represents the ancestor of man. The anthropoids represent very probably the culmination of at least three distinct lines of development. But we must remember that in early tertiary times apes occurred all over Europe, and probably Asia, many degrees farther north than now. In those days, as later, the fauna and flora of northern climates were superior in vigor and height of development to that of Africa or Australia. It is thus, to say the least, not at all improbable that there existed in those times apes considerably, if not far, superior to any surviving forms. Whether the palæontologist will find for us remains of such anthropoids is still to be seen.

But you will naturally ask, "Is there not, after all, a vast difference between the brain of man and that of the ape?" Let us examine this question as fully as our very brief time will allow. Considerable emphasis used to be laid on the facial angle between a line drawn parallel to the base of the skull and one obliquely vertical touching the teeth and most prominent portion of the forehead. Now this angle is in man very large—from seventy-five to eighty-five degrees, or even more, and rarely falling below sixty-five degrees. But this angle depends largely on the protrusion of the jaws, and varies greatly in species of animals showing much the same grade of intelligence. In some not especially intelligent South American monkeys the facial angle amounts to about sixty-five degrees. In this respect the skull of a chimpanzee reminds us of a human skull of small cranial capacity and large jaws, in which the cranium has been pressed back and the jaws crowded forward and slightly upward.

The weight of the brain in proportion to that of the body has been considered as of great importance, and within certain limits this is undoubtedly correct. Thus, according to Leuret, the weight of the brain is to that of the whole body: In fish, 1:5,668; in reptiles, 1:1,320; in birds, 1:212; in mammals, 1:186. These figures give the averages of large numbers of observations and have a certain amount of value. But within the same class the ratio varies extraordinarily. Thus the weight of the brain is to that of the whole body: In the elephant, 1:500; in the largest dogs, 1:305; in the cat, 1:156; in the rat, 1:76; in the chimpanzee, 1:50; in man, 1:36; in the field-mouse, 1:31; in the goldfinch, 1:24.

From this series it is evident that the relative weight of the brain is no index of the intelligence of the animal. Indeed if the brain were purely an organ of mind, there is no reason that it should be any larger in an elephant than in a mouse, provided they had the same mental capacity. As animals grow larger the weight of the brain, relatively to that of the body, decreases, and considering the size of man it is remarkable that it should form so large a fraction of his weight. Still the fraction in the chimpanzee is not so much smaller. It is still possible that this fraction is above the normal for the chimpanzee, for some of the observations may have been taken on animals which had died of consumption or some other wasting disease. I have not been able to find whether this possibility of error has been scrupulously avoided.

A fair idea of the size of the brain may be obtained by measuring the cranial capacity. This varies in man from almost one-hundred cubic inches to less than seventy. In the gorilla its average is perhaps thirty, in the orang and chimpanzee rather less, about twenty-eight. This is certainly a vast difference, especially when we remember that the gorilla far exceeds man in weight.

Le Bon tells us that of a series of skulls forty-five per cent, of the Australian had a cranial capacity of 1,200 to 1,300 c.c., while 46.7 per cent. of modern Parisian skulls showed a capacity of between 1,500 and 1,600 c.c. The skull of the gorilla contains about five hundred and seventy cubic centimetres. Broca found that the cranial capacity of 115 Parisian skulls, of probably the higher classes from the twelfth century, averaged about 1,426 cubic centimetres, while ninety of those of the poorer classes of the nineteenth century averaged about 1,484. His observations seemed to prove that there has been a steady increase in Parisian cranial capacity from the twelfth to the nineteenth century.

Turning to the actual weight of the brain, that of Cuvier weighed 64.5 ounces, and a few cases of weights exceeding 65 ounces have been recorded. The lowest limit of weight in a normal human brain has not yet been accurately determined. From 34 to 31 ounces have been assigned by different writers. The brain of a Bush woman was computed by Marshall at 31.5 ounces, and weights of even 31 ounces have been recorded without any note to show that the possessors were especially lacking in intelligence. As Professor Huxley says in his "Man's Place in Nature," a little book which I cannot too highly recommend to you all, "It may be doubted whether a healthy human adult brain ever weighed less than 31 or 32 ounces, or that the heaviest gorilla brain has ever exceeded 20 ounces. The difference in weight of brain between the highest and the lowest men is far greater, both relatively and absolutely, than that between the lowest man and the highest ape. The latter, as has been seen, is represented by 12 ounces of cerebral substance absolutely, or by 32:20 relatively. But as the largest recorded human brain weighed between 65 and 66 ounces, the former difference is represented by 33 ounces absolutely, or by 65:32 relatively."

But there is another characteristic of the brain which seems to bear a close relation to the degree of intelligence. The surface of the human brain is not smooth but covered with convolutions, with alternating grooves or sulci, which vastly increase its surface and thus make room for more gray matter. Says Gratiolett: "On comparing a series of human and simian brains we are immediately struck with the analogy exhibited in the cerebral forms in all these creatures. There is a cerebral form peculiar to man and the apes; and so in the cerebral convolutions, wherever they appear, there is a general unity of arrangement, a plan, the type of which is common to all these creatures." Professor Huxley says: "It is most remarkable that, as soon as all the principal sulci appear, the pattern according to which they are arranged is identical with the corresponding sulci in man. The surface of the brain of the monkey exhibits a sort of skeleton map of man's, and in the man-like apes the details become more and more filled in, until it is only in minor characters that the chimpanzee's or orang's brain can be structurally distinguished from man's."