In the vital organs of the two there is perhaps still greater unity of structure, and equal unity of function in all essential details. The difference of structure is only to the extent of making the organ conform to the general plan of the animal, and the difference of function is only one of degree. Since the same characters vary quite as much among men without changing their identity as such, it cannot be sufficient ground to widen the hiatus between man and ape; in fact, the physical likeness of the two grows stronger as the comparison is extended into more minute and scrutinising details. To the casual observer the general resemblance is apparent, but to the student the unity becomes evident.
In addition to the facts we have cited, the ape has the same habits of rest and sleep; lives on the same kind of diet, which is eaten and assimilated in the same manner as with man; is subject to many of the same diseases which attack the same organs, and affect them in the same way as with man; he suffers like pains and dies in the same manner as man under like conditions.
The scope of this book is intended only to embrace the chimpanzee and gorilla, but the comparison which we have shown applies in the name to all four of the anthropoid apes, but must be qualified in a few instances to make it apply to the others. These apes differ among themselves in certain respects in form and habits, and we will omit a detailed comparison of the monkeys as not being relevant to the subject in hand; but it will not be out of place to mention in a general way the chief point in which they differ from men and apes.
There is no fixed type that will represent all kinds of monkeys.
Within the limits of their own family they present a great variety of types, but the one marked difference between them as a unit, and the ape as another, is, that the spinal column of the monkey is always extended into a tail, the first vertebra of which is joined to the base of the sacrum, while the ape has no tail, but the spinal column terminates with a small pointed bone called the coccyx, exactly the same as in man. The number of bones and the number of ribs in monkeys differ from those in the ape or in man, and also vary among different types of monkey.
There are many little shades and grades of difference all along the line, but the unity of design throughout the whole range of simian life is such as to show a continuity of plan and purpose in all essential details of the animal economy. With man and ape the physical structures are one, so far as they pertain to autonomy: their habits are one, so far as they pertain to the means of life; their faculties are one, so far as they pertain to the animal polity, yet they may not be of a common stock.
The public mind does not seem to have grasped the correct idea of evolution, and prejudice has blinded, to some extent, the judgment. The common opinion that man has descended from or is related by consanguinity to a monkey is silly and absurd. Science has never taught such folly, nor advanced any theory from which such a conclusion could be justly deduced. It would be a waste of time for me to offer to explain the doctrine of evolution to any one who does not already understand it from the literature of others on this subject. If he still nurse the idol of the identity of man and monkey, he must be too obtuse or too perverse to be reclaimed. But no one will deny the physical resemblance between man and the great apes, and it is this resemblance we seek to show rather than trace any relationship based upon theories. It is not a matter that concerns the purpose of this work, and we shall here dismiss the subject by saying, that things may be equivalent and yet not identical.