Thisisaverynoteworthycircumstance，anddoubtlesswillonedayhelptofurnishanexplanationofthegreatgulfwhichintervenesbetweenthelowestmanandthehighestapeinintellectualpower；*butithaslittlesystematicvalue，forthesimplereasonthat，asmaybeconcludedfromwhathasbeenalreadysaidrespectingcranialcapacity，thedifferenceinweightofbrainbetweenthehighestandthelowestmenisfargreater，bothrelativelyandabsolutely，thanthatbetweenthelowestmanandthehighestape。Thelatter，ashasbeenseen，isrepresentedby，saytwelveouncesofcerebralsubstanceabsolutely，orby32：20relatively；butasthelargestrecordedhumanbrainweighedbetween65and66ounces，theformerdifferenceisrepresentedbymorethan33ouncesabsolutely，orby65：32relatively。Regardedsystematically，thecerebraldifferencesofmanandapesarenotofmorethangenericvalue；hisFamilydistinctionrestingchieflyonhisdentition，hispelvis，andhislowerlimbs。
[Footnote]*Isay’help’tofurnish：forIbynomeansbelievethatitwasanyoriginaldifferenceofcerebralquality，orquantitywhichcausedthatdivergencebetweenthehumanandthepithecoidstirpes，whichhasendedinthepresentenormousgulfbetweenthem。Itisnodoubtperfectlytrue，inacertainsense，thatalldifferenceoffunctionisaresultofdifferenceofstructure；or，inotherwords，ofdifferenceinthecombinationoftheprimarymolecularforcesoflivingsubstance；and，startingfromthisundeniableaxiom，objectorsoccasionally，andwithmuchseemingplausibility，arguethatthevastintellectualchasmbetweentheApeandManimpliesacorrespondingstructuralchasmintheorgansoftheintellectualfunctions；sothat，itissaid，thenon-discoveryofsuchvastdifferencesproves，notthattheyareabsent，butthatScienceisincompetenttodetectthem。Averylittleconsideration，however，will，Ithink，showthefallacyofthisreasoning。Itsvalidityhangsupontheassumption，thatintellectualpowerdependsaltogetheronthebrain——whereasthebrainisonlyoneconditionoutofmanyonwhichintellectualmanifestationsdepend；theothersbeing，chiefly，theorgansofthesensesandthemotorapparatuses，especiallythosewhichareconcernedinprehensionandintheproductionofarticulatespeech。
Amanborndumb，notwithstandinghisgreatcerebralmassandhisinheritanceofstrongintellectualinstincts，wouldbecapableoffewhigherintellectualmanifestationsthananOrangoraChimpanzee，ifhewereconfinedtothesocietyofdumbassociates。Andyettheremightnotbetheslightestdiscernibledifferencebetweenhisbrainandthatofahighlyintelligentandcultivatedperson。Thedumbnessmightbetheresultofadefectivestructureofthemouth，orofthetongue，orameredefectiveinnervationoftheseparts；oritmightresultfromcongenitaldeafness，causedbysomeminutedefectoftheinternalear，whichonlyacarefulanatomistcoulddiscover。
Theargument，thatbecausethereisanimmensedifferencebetweenaMan’sintelligenceandanApe’s，therefore，theremustbeanequallyimmensedifferencebetweentheirbrains，appearstometobeaboutaswellbasedasthereasoningbywhichoneshouldendeavourtoprovethat，becausethereisa"greatgulf"betweenawatchthatkeepsaccuratetimeandanotherthatwillnotgoatall，thereisthereforeagreatstructuralhiatusbetweenthetwowatches。Ahairinthebalance-wheel，alittlerustonapinion，abendinatoothoftheescapement，asomethingsoslightthatonlythepractisedeyeofthewatchmakercandiscoverit，maybethesourceofallthedifference。
Andbelieving，asIdo，withCuvier，thatthepossessionofarticulatespeechisthegranddistinctivecharacterofman（whetheritbeabsolutelypeculiartohimornot），Ifinditveryeasytocomprehend，thatsomeequallyinconspicuousstructuraldifferencemayhavebeentheprimarycauseoftheimmeasurableandpracticallyinfinitedivergenceoftheHumanfromtheSimianStirps。
Thus，whateversystemoforgansbestudied，thecomparisonoftheirmodificationsintheapeseriesleadstooneandthesameresult——thatthestructuraldifferenceswhichseparateManfromtheGorillaandtheChimpanzeearenotsogreatasthosewhichseparatetheGorillafromthelowerapes。
ButinenunciatingthisimportanttruthImustguardmyselfagainstaformofmisunderstanding，whichisveryprevalent。Ifind，infact，thatthosewhoendeavourtoteachwhatnaturesoclearlyshowsusinthismatter，areliabletohavetheiropinionsmisrepresentedandtheirphraseologygarbled，untiltheyseemtosaythatthestructuraldifferencesbetweenmanandeventhehighestapesaresmallandinsignificant。Letmetakethisopportunitythenofdistinctlyasserting，onthecontrary，thattheyaregreatandsignificant；thateveryboneofaGorillabearsmarksbywhichitmightbedistinguishedfromthecorrespondingboneofaMan；andthat，inthepresentcreation，atanyrate，nointermediatelinkbridgesoverthegapbetween’Homo’and’Troglodytes’。
Itwouldbenolesswrongthanabsurdtodenytheexistenceofthischasm；butitisatleastequallywrongandabsurdtoexaggerateitsmagnitude，and，restingontheadmittedfactofitsexistence，torefusetoinquirewhetheritiswideornarrow。Remember，ifyouwill，thatthereisnoexistinglinkbetweenManandtheGorilla，butdonotforgetthatthereisanolesssharplineofdemarcation，anolesscompleteabsenceofanytransitionalform，betweentheGorillaandtheOrang，ortheOrangandtheGibbon。Isay，notlesssharp，thoughitissomewhatnarrower。ThestructuraldifferencesbetweenManandtheMan-likeapescertainlyjustifyourregardinghimasconstitutingafamilyapartfromthem；though，inasmuchashedifferslessfromthemthantheydofromotherfamiliesofthesameorder，therecanbenojustificationforplacinghiminadistinctorder。
Andthusthesagaciousforesightofthegreatlawgiverofsystematiczoology，Linnaeus，becomesjustified，andacenturyofanatomicalresearchbringsusbacktohisconclusion，thatmanisamemberofthesameorder（forwhichtheLinnaeantermPRIMATESoughttoberetained）
astheApesandLemurs。Thisorderisnowdivisibleintosevenfamilies，ofaboutequalsystematicvalue：thefirst，theANTHROPINI，containsManalone；thesecond，theCATARHINI，embracestheold-worldapes；thethird，thePLATYRHINI，allnew-worldapes，excepttheMarmosets；thefourth，theARCTOPITHECINI，containstheMarmosets；thefifth，theLEMURINI，theLemurs——fromwhich’Cheiromys’shouldprobablybeexcludedtoformasixthdistinctfamily，theCHEIROMYINI；whiletheseventh，theGALEOPITHECINI，containsonlytheflyingLemur’Galeopithecus’，——astrangeformwhichalmosttouchesontheBats，asthe’Cheiromys’putsonarodentclothing，andtheLemurssimulateInsectivora。
Perhapsnoorderofmammalspresentsuswithsoextraordinaryaseriesofgradationsasthis——leadingusinsensiblyfromthecrownandsummitoftheanimalcreationdowntocreatures，fromwhichthereisbutastep，asitseems，tothelowest，smallest，andleastintelligentoftheplacentalMammalia。Itisasifnatureherselfhadforeseenthearroganceofman，andwithRomanseverityhadprovidedthathisintellect，byitsverytriumphs，shouldcallintoprominencetheslaves，admonishingtheconquerorthatheisbutdust。
Thesearethechieffacts，thistheimmediateconclusionfromthemtowhichIadvertedinthecommencementofthisEssay。Thefacts，I
believe，cannotbedisputed；andifso，theconclusionappearstometobeinevitable。
ButifManbeseparatedbynogreaterstructuralbarrierfromthebrutesthantheyarefromoneanother——thenitseemstofollowthatifanyprocessofphysicalcausationcanbediscoveredbywhichthegeneraandfamiliesofordinaryanimalshavebeenproduced，thatprocessofcausationisamplysufficienttoaccountfortheoriginofMan。Inotherwords，ifitcouldbeshownthattheMarmosets，forexample，havearisenbygradualmodificationoftheordinaryPlatyrhini，orthatbothMarmosetsandPlatyrhiniaremodifiedramificationsofaprimitivestock——then，therewouldbenorationalgroundfordoubtingthatmanmighthaveoriginated，intheonecase，bythegradualmodificationofaman-likeape；or，intheothercase，asaramificationofthesameprimitivestockasthoseapes。
Atthepresentmoment，butonesuchprocessofphysicalcausationhasanyevidenceinitsfavour；or，inotherwords，thereisbutonehypothesisregardingtheoriginofspeciesofanimalsingeneralwhichhasanyscientificexistence——thatpropoundedbyMr。Darwin。ForLamarck，sagaciousasmanyofhisviewswere，mingledthemwithsomuchthatwascrudeandevenabsurd，astoneutralizethebenefitwhichhisoriginalitymighthaveeffected，hadhebeenamoresoberandcautiousthinker；andthoughIhaveheardoftheannouncementofaformulatouching"theordainedcontinuousbecomingoforganicforms，"itisobviousthatitisthefirstdutyofahypothesistobeintelligible，andthataqua-qua-versalpropositionofthiskind，whichmaybereadbackwards，orforwards，orsideways，withexactlythesameamountofsignification，doesnotreallyexist，thoughitmayseemtodoso。
Atthepresentmoment，therefore，thequestionoftherelationofmantotheloweranimalsresolvesitself，intheend，intothelargerquestionofthetenability，oruntenabilityofMr。Darwin’sviews。Buthereweenterupondifficultground，anditbehovesustodefineourexactpositionwiththegreatestcare。
Itcannotbedoubted，Ithink，thatMr。Darwinhassatisfactorilyprovedthatwhathetermsselection，orselectivemodification，mustoccur，anddoesoccur，innature；andhehasalsoprovedtosuperfluitythatsuchselectioniscompetenttoproduceformsasdistinct，structurally，assomegeneraevenare。Iftheanimatedworldpresenteduswithnonebutstructuraldifferences，IshouldhavenohesitationinsayingthatMr。Darwinhaddemonstratedtheexistenceofatruephysicalcause，amplycompetenttoaccountfortheoriginoflivingspecies，andofmanamongtherest。
But，inadditiontotheirstructuraldistinctions，thespeciesofanimalsandplants，oratleastagreatnumberofthem，exhibitphysiologicalcharacters——whatareknownasdistinctspecies，structurally，beingforthemostparteitheraltogetherincompetenttobreedonewithanother；oriftheybreed，theresultingmule，orhybrid，isunabletoperpetuateitsracewithanotherhybridofthesamekind。
Atruephysicalcauseis，however，admittedtobesuchonlyononecondition——thatitshallaccountforallthephenomenawhichcomewithintherangeofitsoperation。Ifitisinconsistentwithanyonephenomenon，itmustberejected；ifitfailstoexplainanyonephenomenon，itissofarweak，sofartobesuspected；thoughitmayhaveaperfectrighttoclaimprovisionalacceptance。
Now，Mr。Darwin’shypothesisisnot，sofarasIamaware，inconsistentwithanyknownbiologicalfact；onthecontrary，ifadmitted，thefactsofDevelopment，ofComparativeAnatomy，ofGeographicalDistribution，andofPalaeontology，becomeconnectedtogether，andexhibitameaningsuchastheyneverpossessedbefore；andI，forone，amfullyconvinced，thatifnotpreciselytrue，thathypothesisisasnearanapproximationtothetruthas，forexample，theCopernicanhypothesiswastothetruetheoryoftheplanetarymotions。
But，forallthis，ouracceptanceoftheDarwinianhypothesismustbeprovisionalsolongasonelinkinthechainofevidenceiswanting；
andsolongasalltheanimalsandplantscertainlyproducedbyselectivebreedingfromacommonstockarefertile，andtheirprogenyarefertilewithoneanother，thatlinkwillbewanting。For，solong，selectivebreedingwillnotbeprovedtobecompetenttodoallthatisrequiredofittoproducenaturalspecies。
Ihaveputthisconclusionasstronglyaspossiblebeforethereader，becausethelastpositioninwhichIwishtofindmyselfisthatofanadvocateforMr。Darwin’s，oranyotherviews——ifbyanadvocateismeantonewhosebusinessitistosmoothoverrealdifficulties，andtopersuadewherehecannotconvince。
InjusticetoMr。Darwin，however，itmustbeadmittedthattheconditionsoffertilityandsterilityareveryillunderstood，andthateveryday’sadvanceinknowledgeleadsustoregardthehiatusinhisevidenceasoflessandlessimportance，whensetagainstthemultitudeoffactswhichharmonizewith，orreceiveanexplanationfrom，hisdoctrines。
IadoptMr。Darwin’shypothesis，therefore，subjecttotheproductionofproofthatphysiologicalspeciesmaybeproducedbyselectivebreeding；
justasaphysicalphilosophermayaccepttheundulatorytheoryoflight，subjecttotheproofoftheexistenceofthehypotheticalether；
orasthechemistadoptstheatomictheory，subjecttotheproofoftheexistenceofatoms；andforexactlythesamereasons，namely，thatithasanimmenseamountofprimafacieprobability：thatitistheonlymeansatpresentwithinreachofreducingthechaosofobservedfactstoorder；andlastly，thatitisthemostpowerfulinstrumentofinvestigationwhichhasbeenpresentedtonaturalistssincetheinventionofthenaturalsystemofclassification，andthecommencementofthesystematicstudyofembryology。
ButevenleavingMr。Darwin’sviewsaside，thewholeanalogyofnaturaloperationsfurnishessocompleteandcrushinganargumentagainsttheinterventionofanybutwhataretermedsecondarycauses，intheproductionofallthephenomenaoftheuniverse；that，inviewoftheintimaterelationsbetweenManandtherestofthelivingworld，andbetweentheforcesexertedbythelatterandallotherforces，Icanseenoexcusefordoubtingthatallareco-ordinatedtermsofNature’sgreatprogression，fromtheformlesstotheformed——fromtheinorganictotheorganic——fromblindforcetoconsciousintellectandwill。
Sciencehasfulfilledherfunctionwhenshehasascertainedandenunciatedtruth；andwerethesepagesaddressedtomenofscienceonly，Ishouldnowclosethisessay，knowingthatmycolleagueshavelearnedtorespectnothingbutevidence，andtobelievethattheirhighestdutyliesinsubmittingtoit，howeveritmayjaragainsttheirinclinations。
Butdesiring，asIdo，toreachthewidercircleoftheintelligentpublic，itwouldbeunworthycowardicewereItoignoretherepugnancewithwhichthemajorityofmyreadersarelikelytomeettheconclusionstowhichthemostcarefulandconscientiousstudyIhavebeenabletogivetothismatter，hasledme。
OnallsidesIshallhearthecry——"Wearemenandwomen，notamerebettersortofapes，alittlelongerintheleg，morecompactinthefoot，andbiggerinbrainthanyourbrutalChimpanzeesandGorillas。
Thepowerofknowledge——theconscienceofgoodandevil——thepitifultendernessofhumanaffections，raiseusoutofallrealfellowshipwiththebrutes，howevercloselytheymayseemtoapproximateus。"
TothisIcanonlyreplythattheexclamationwouldbemostjustandwouldhavemyownentiresympathy，ifitwereonlyrelevant。But，itisnotIwhoseektobaseMan’sdignityuponhisgreattoe，orinsinuatethatwearelostifanApehasahippocampusminor。Onthecontrary，Ihavedonemybesttosweepawaythisvanity。Ihaveendeavouredtoshowthatnoabsolutestructurallineofdemarcation，widerthanthatbetweentheanimalswhichimmediatelysucceedusinthescale，canbedrawnbetweentheanimalworldandourselves；andImayaddtheexpressionofmybeliefthattheattempttodrawapsychicaldistinctionisequallyfutile，andthateventhehighestfacultiesoffeelingandofintellectbegintogerminateinlowerformsoflife。*Atthesametime，nooneismorestronglyconvincedthanIamofthevastnessofthegulfbetweencivilizedmanandthebrutes；orismorecertainthatwhether’from’themornot，heisassuredlynot’of’
them。Nooneislessdisposedtothinklightlyofthepresentdignity，ordesparinglyofthefuturehopes，oftheonlyconsciouslyintelligentdenizenofthisworld。
[Footnote]*ItissorareapleasureformetofindProfessorOwen’sopinionsinentireaccordancewithmyown，thatIcannotforbearfromquotingaparagraphwhichappearedinhisEssay"OntheCharacters，etc。，oftheClassMammalia，"inthe’JournaloftheProceedingsoftheLinneanSocietyofLondon’for1857，butisunaccountablyomittedinthe"ReadeLecture"deliveredbeforetheUniversityofCambridgetwoyearslater，whichisotherwisenearlyareprintofthepaperinquestion。Prof。Owenwrites："NotbeingabletoappreciateorconceiveofthedistinctionbetweenthepsychicalphenomenaofaChimpanzee，andofaBoschismanorofanAztec，witharrestedbraingrowth，asbeingofanaturesoessentialastoprecludeacomparisonbetweenthem，orasbeingotherthanadifferenceofdegree，Icannotshutmyeyestothesignificanceofthatall-pervadingsimilitudeofstructure——everytooth，everybone，strictlyhomologous——whichmakesthedeterminationofthedifferencebetween’Homo’and’Pithecus’theanatomist’sdifficulty。"
Surelyitisalittlesingular，thatthe’anatomist，’whofindsit’difficult’to’determinethedifference’between’Homo’and’Pithecus’，shouldyetrangethemonanatomicalgrounds，indistinctsub-classes！
Weareindeedtoldbythosewhoassumeauthorityinthesematters，thatthetwosetsofopinionsareincompatible，andthatthebeliefintheunityoforiginofmanandbrutesinvolvesthebrutalizationanddegradationoftheformer。Butisthisreallyso？Couldnotasensiblechildconfutebyobviousarguments，theshallowrhetoricianswhowouldforcethisconclusionuponus？Isit，indeed，true，thatthePoet，orthePhilosopher，ortheArtistwhosegeniusisthegloryofhisage，isdegradedfromhishighestatebytheundoubtedhistoricalprobability，nottosaycertainty，thatheisthedirectdescendantofsomenakedandbestialsavage，whoseintelligencewasjustsufficienttomakehimalittlemorecunningthantheFox，andbysomuchmoredangerousthantheTiger？Orisheboundtohowlandgrovelonallfoursbecauseofthewhollyunquestionablefact，thathewasonceanegg，whichnoordinarypowerofdiscriminationcoulddistinguishfromthatofaDog？Oristhephilanthropistorthesainttogiveuphisendeavourstoleadanoblelife，becausethesimpleststudyofman’snaturereveals，atitsfoundations，alltheselfishpassionsandfierceappetitesofthemerestquadruped？Ismother-lovevilebecauseahenshowsit，orfidelitybasebecausedogspossessit？
Thecommonsenseofthemassofmankindwillanswerthesequestionswithoutamoment’shesitation。Healthyhumanity，findingitselfhardpressedtoescapefromrealsinanddegradation，willleavethebroodingoverspeculativepollutiontothecynicsandthe’righteousovermuch’who，disagreeingineverythingelse，uniteinblindinsensibilitytothenoblenessofthevisibleworld，andininabilitytoappreciatethegrandeuroftheplaceManoccupiestherein。
Naymore，thoughtfulmen，onceescapedfromtheblindinginfluencesoftraditionalprejudice，willfindinthelowlystockwhenceManhassprung，thebestevidenceofthesplendourofhiscapacities；andwilldiscerninhislongprogressthroughthePast，areasonablegroundoffaithinhisattainmentofanoblerFuture。
Theywillrememberthatincomparingcivilisedmanwiththeanimalworld，oneisastheAlpinetraveller，whoseesthemountainssoaringintotheskyandcanhardlydiscernwherethedeepshadowedcragsandroseatepeaksend，andwherethecloudsofheavenbegin。Surelytheawe-struckvoyagermaybeexcusedif，atfirst，herefusestobelievethegeologist，whotellshimthatthesegloriousmassesare，afterall，thehardenedmudofprimevalseas，orthecooledslagofsubterraneanfurnaces——ofonesubstancewiththedullestclay，butraisedbyinwardforcestothatplaceofproudandseeminglyinaccessibleglory。
Butthegeologistisright；andduereflectiononhisteachings，insteadofdiminishingourreverenceandourwonder，addsalltheforceofintellectualsublimitytothemereaestheticintuitionoftheuninstructedbeholder。
Andafterpassionandprejudicehavediedaway，thesameresultwillattendtheteachingsofthenaturalistrespectingthatgreatAlpsandAndesofthelivingworld——Man。OurreverenceforthenobilityofmanhoodwillnotbelessenedbytheknowledgethatManis，insubstanceandinstructure，onewiththebrutes；for，healonepossessesthemarvellousendowmentofintelligibleandrationalspeech，whereby，inthesecularperiodofhisexistence，hehasslowlyaccumulatedandorganizedtheexperiencewhichisalmostwhollylostwiththecessationofeveryindividuallifeinotheranimals；sothatnowhestandsraiseduponitasonamountaintop，farabovethelevelofhishumblefellows，andtransfiguredfromhisgrossernaturebyreflecting，hereandthere，arayfromtheinfinitesourceoftruth。
’AsuccinctHistoryoftheControversyrespectingtheCerebralStructureofManandtheApes’
UPtotheyear1857allanatomistsofauthority，whohadoccupiedthemselveswiththecerebralstructureoftheApes——Cuvier，Tiedemann，Sandifort，Vrolik，IsidoreG。St。Hilaire，SchroedervanderKolk，Gratiolet——wereagreedthatthebrainoftheApespossessesaPOSTERIOR
LOBE。
Tiedemann，in1825，figuredandacknowledgedinthetextofhis’Icones’
theexistenceofthePOSTERIORCORNUofthelateralventricleintheApes，notonlyunderthetitleof’Scrobiculusparvuslococornuposterioris’——afactwhichhasbeenparaded——butas’cornuposterius’
（’Icones’，p。54），acircumstancewhichhasbeen，assedulously，keptinthebackground。
Cuvier（’Lecons’，T。iii。p。103）says，"theanteriororlateralventriclespossessadigitalcavity[posteriorcornu]onlyinManandtheApes……itspresencedependsonthatoftheposteriorlobes。"
SchroedervanderKolkandVrolik，andGratiolet，hadalsofiguredanddescribedtheposteriorcornuinvariousApes。AstotheHIPPOCAMPUS
MINORTiedemannhaderroneouslyasserteditsabsenceintheApes；butSchroedervanderKolkandVrolikhadpointedouttheexistenceofwhattheyconsideredarudimentaryoneintheChimpanzee，andGratiolethadexpresslyaffirmeditsexistenceintheseanimals。Suchwasthestateofourinformationonthesesubjectsintheyear1856。
Intheyear1857，however，ProfessorOwen，eitherinignoranceofthesewell-knownfactsorelseunjustifiablysuppressingthem，submittedtotheLinnaeanSocietyapaper"OntheCharacters，PrinciplesofDivision，andPrimaryGroupsoftheClassMammalia，"whichwasprintedintheSociety’sJournal，andcontainsthefollowingpassage：——"InMan，thebrainpresentsanascensivestepindevelopment，higherandmorestronglymarkedthanthatbywhichtheprecedingsub-classwasdistinguishedfromtheonebelowit。Notonlydothecerebralhemispheresoverlapandtheolfactorylobesandcerebellum，buttheyextendinadvanceoftheoneandfurtherbackthantheother。Theposteriordevelopmentissomarked，thatanatomistshaveassignedtothatpartthecharacterofathirdlobe；’itispeculiartothegenusHomo，andequallypeculiaristheposteriorhornofthelateralventricleandthe’hippocampusminor，’whichcharacterisethehindlobeofeachhemisphere’。"——’JournaloftheProceedingsoftheLinnaeanSociety，Vol。ii。p。19。
AstheessayinwhichthispassagestandshadnolessambitiousanaimthantheremodellingoftheclassificationoftheMammalia，itsauthormightbesupposedtohavewrittenunderasenseofpeculiarresponsibility，andtohavetested，withespecialcare，thestatementsheventuredtopromulgate。Andevenifthisbeexpectingtoomuch，hastiness，orwantofopportunityforduedeliberation，cannotnowbepleadedinextenuationofanyshortcomings；forthepropositionscitedwererepeatedtwoyearsafterwardsintheReadeLecture，deliveredbeforesograveabodyastheUniversityofCambridge，in1859。
Whentheassertions，whichIhaveitalicisedintheaboveextract，firstcameundermynotice，Iwasnotalittleastonishedatsoflatacontradictionofthedoctrinescurrentamongwell-indormedanatomists；
but，notunnaturallyimaginingthatthedeliberatestatementsofaresponsiblepersonmusthavesomefoundationinfact，Ideemeditmydutytoinvestigatethesubjectanewbeforethetimeatwhichitwouldbemybusinesstolecturethereuponcameround。TheresultofmyinquirieswastoprovethatMr。Owen’sthreeassertions，that"thethirdlobe，theposteriorhornofthelateralventricle，andthehippocampusminor，"are"peculartothegenus’Homo’，"arecontrarytotheplainestfacts。Icommunicatedthisconclusiontothestudentsofmyclass；andthen，havingnodesiretoembarkinacontroversywhichcouldnotredoundtothehonourofBritishscience，whateveritsissue，Iturnedtomorecongenialoccupations。
Thetimespeedilyarrived，however，whenapersistenceinthisreticencewouldhaveinvolvedmeinanunworthypalteringwithtruth。
AtthemeetingoftheBritishAssociationatOxford，in1860，ProfessorOwenrepeatedtheseassertionsinmypresence，and，ofcourse，I
immediatelygavethemadirectandunqualifiedcontradiction，pledgingmyselftojustifythatunusualprocedureelsewhere。Iredeemedthatpledgebypublishing，intheJanuarynumberofthe’NaturalHistoryReview’for1861，anarticlewhereinthetruthofthethreefollowingpropositionswasfullydemonstrated（l。c。p。71）：——
"1。Thatthethirdlobeisneitherpeculiarto，norcharacteristicof，man，seeingthatitexistsinallthehigherquadrumana。"
"2。Thattheposteriorcornuofthelateralventricleisneitherpeculiarto，norcharacteristicof，man，inasmuchasitalsoexistsinthehigherquadrumana。"
"3。Thatthe’hippocampusminor’isneitherpecularto，norcharacteristicof，man，asitisfoundincertainofthehigherquadrumana。"
Furthermore，thispapercontainsthefollowingparagraph（p。76）："Andlastly，SchroedervanderKolkandVrolik（op。cit。p。271），thoughtheyparticularlynotethat’thelateralventricleisdistinguishedfromthatofManbytheverydefectiveproportionsoftheposteriorcornu，whereinonlyastripeisvisibleasanindicationofthehippocampusminor；’yettheFigure4，intheirsecondPlate，showsthatthisposteriorcornuisaperfectlydistinctandunmistakeablestructure，quiteaslargeasitoftenisinMan。ItisthemoreremarkablethatProfessorOwenshouldhaveoverlookedtheexplicitstatementandfigureoftheseauthors，asitisquiteobvious，oncomparisonofthefigures，thathiswoodcutofthebrainofaChimpanzee（l。c。p。19）isareducedcopyofthesecondfigureofMessrs。
SchroedervanderKolkandVrolik’sfirstPlate。
"AsM。Gratiolet（l。c。p。18），howeveriscarefultoremark，’unfortunatelythebrainwhichtheyhavetakenasamodelwasgreatlyaltered（profondementaffaisse），whencethegeneralformofthebrainisgivenintheseplatesinamannerwhichisaltogetherincorrect。’
Indeed，itisperfectlyobvious，fromacomparisonofasectionoftheskulloftheChimpanzeewiththesefigures，thatsuchisthecase；anditisgreatlytoberegrettedthatsoinadequateafigureshouldhavebeentakenasatypicalrepresentationoftheChimpanzee’sbrain。"
Fromthistimeforth，theuntenabilityofhispositionmighthavebeenasapparenttoProfessorOwenasitwastoeveryoneelse；but，sofarfromretractingthegraveerrorsintowhichhehadfallen，ProfessorOwenhaspersistedinandreiteratedthem；first，inalecturedeliveredbeforetheRoyalInstitutiononthe19thofMarch，1861，whichisadmittedtohavebeenaccuratelyreproducedinthe’Athenaeum’
forthe23rdofthesamemonth，inaletteraddressedbyProfessorOwentothatjournalonthe30thofMarch。The’AthenaeumreportwasaccompaniedbyadiagrampurportingtorepresentaGorilla’sbrain，butinrealitysoextraordinaryamisrepresentation，thatProfessorOwensubstantially，thoughnotexplicitly，withdrawsitintheletterinquestion。Inamendingthiserror，however，ProfessorOwenfellintoanotherofmuchgraverimport，ashiscommunicationconcludeswiththefollowingparagraph："ForthetrueproportioninwhichthecerebrumcoversthecerebelluminthehighestApes，referenceshouldbemadetothefigureoftheundissectedbrainoftheChimpanzeeinmy’Reade’sLectureontheClassification，etc。，oftheMammalia’，p。25，fig。7，8
vo。1859。"
Itwouldnotbecredible，ifitwerenotunfortunatelytrue，thatthisfigure，towhichthetrustingpublicisreferred，withoutawordofqualification，"forthetrueproportioninwhichthecerebrumcoversthecerebelluminthehighestApes，"isexactlythatunacknowledgedcopyofSchroedervanderKolkandVrolik’sfigurewhoseutterinaccuracyhadbeenpointedoutyearsbeforebyGratiolet，andhadbeenbroughttoProfessorOwen’sknowledgebymyselfinthepassageofmyarticleinthe’NaturalHistoryReview’abovequoted。
IdrewpublicattentiontothiscircumstanceagaininmyreplytoProfessorOwen，publishedinthe’Athenaeum’forApril13th，1861；buttheexplodedfigurewasreproducedoncemorebyProfessorOwen，withouttheslightestallusiontoitsinaccuracy，inthe’AnnalsofNaturalHistory’forJune1861！
Thisprovedtoomuchforthepatienceoftheoriginalauthorsofthefigure，Messrs。SchroedervanderKolkandVrolik，who，inanoteaddressedtotheAcademyofAmsterdam，ofwhichtheyweremembers，declaredthemselvestobe，thoughdecidedopponentsofallformsofthedoctrineofprogressivedevelopment，aboveallthings，loversoftruth：
andthat，therefore，atwhateverriskofseemingtolendsupporttoviewswhichtheydisliked，theyfeltittheirdutytotakethefirstopportunityofpubliclyrepudiatingProfessorOwen’smisuseoftheirauthority。
InthisnotetheyfranklyadmittedthejusticeofthecriticismsofM。
Gratiolet，quotedabove，andtheyillustrated，bynewandcarefulfigures，theposteriorlobe，theposteriorcornu，andthehippocampusminoroftheOrang。Furthermore，havingdemonstratedtheparts，atoneofthesittingsoftheAcademy，theyadd，"lapresencedespartiescontesteesyaeteuniversellementreconnueparlesanatomistespresentsalaseance。LeseuldoutequisoitresteserapporteaupesHippocampiminor……Al’etatfraisl’indicedupetitpiedd’Hippocampeetaitplusprononcequemaintenant。"
ProfessorOwenrepeatedhiserroneousassertionsatthemeetingoftheBritishAssociationin1861，andagain，withoutanyobviousnecessity，andwithoutadducingasinglenewfactornewargument，orbeingableinanywaytomeetthecrushingevidencefromoriginaldissectionsofnumerousApes’brains，whichhadinthemeanwhilebeenbroughtforwardbyProf。Rolleston，*F。R。S。，Mr。Marshall，**F。R。S。，Mr。Flower，***Mr。
Turner，****andmyself，*****revivedthesubjectattheCambridgemeetingofthesamebodyin1862。NotcontentwiththetolerablyvigorousrepudiationwhichtheseunprecedentedproceedingsmetwithinSectionD，ProfessorOwensanctionedthepublicationofaversionofhisownstatements，accompaniedbyastrangemisrepresentationofmine（asmaybeseenbycomparisonofthe’Times’reportofthediscussion），inthe’MedicalTimes’forOctober11th，1862。IsubjointheconclusionofmyreplyinthesamejournalforOctober25th。
[Footnotes]*OntheAffinitiesoftheBrainoftheOrang。
’Nat。Hist。Review’，April，1861。
**OntheBrainofayoungChimpanzee。’Ibid。’，July，1861。
***OnthePosteriorlobesoftheCerebrumoftheQuadrumana。’PhilosophicalTransactions’，1862。
****OntheanatomicalRelationsoftheSurfacesoftheTentoriumtotheCerebrumandCerebelluminManandthelowerMammals。’ProceedingsoftheRoyalSocietyofEdinburgh’，March，1862。
*****OntheBrainofAteles。’ProceedingsofZoologicalSociety’，1861。
"Ifthiswereaquestionofopinion，oraquestionofinterpretationofpartsorofterms，——wereitevenaquestionofobservationinwhichthetestimonyofmyownsensesalonewaspittedagainstthatofanotherperson，Ishouldadoptaverydifferenttoneindiscussingthismatter。
Ishould，inallhumility，admitthelikelihoodofhavingmyselferredinjudgment，failedinknowledge，orbeenblindedbyprejudice。
"Butnoonepretendsnow，thatthecontroversyisoneofthetermsorofopinions。NovelanddevoidofauthorityassomeofProfessorOwen’sproposeddefinitionsmayhavebeen，theymightbeacceptedwithoutchangingthegreatfeaturesofthecase。HencethoughspecialinvestigationsintothesemattershavebeenundertakenduringthelasttwoyearsbyDr。AllenThomson，byDr。Rolleston，byMr。Marshall，andbyMr。Flower，all，asyouareaware，anatomistsofreputeinthiscountry，andbyProfessorsSchroederVanderKolk，andVrolik（whomProfessorOwenincautiouslytriedtopressintohisownservice）ontheContinent，alltheseableandconscientiousobservershavewithoneaccordtestifiedtotheaccuracyofmystatements，andtotheutterbaselessnessoftheassertionsofProfessorOwen。EventhevenerableRudolphWagner，whomnomanwillaccuseofprogressionistproclivities，hasraisedhisvoiceonthesameside；whilenotasingleanatomist，greatorsmall，hassupportedProfessorOwen。
"Now，Idonotmeantosuggestthatscientificdifferencesshouldbesettledbyuniversalsuffrage，butIdoconceivethatsolidproofsmustbemetbysomethingmorethanemptyandunsupportedassertions。Yetduringthetwoyearsthroughwhichthispreposterouscontroversyhasdraggeditswearylength，ProfessorOwenhasnotventuredtobringforwardasinglepreparationinsupportofhisoften-repeatedassertions。
"Thecasestandsthus，therefore：——Notonlyarethestatementsmadebymeinconsonancewiththedoctrinesofthebestolderauthorities，andwiththoseofallrecentinvestigators，butIamquitereadytodemonstratethemonthefirstmonkeythatcomestohand；whileProfessorOwen’sassertionsarenotonlyindiametricaloppositiontobotholdandnewauthorities，buthehasnotproduced，and，Iwilladd，cannotproduce，asinglepreparationwhichjustifiesthem"
Inowleavethissubject，forthepresent。——ForthecreditofmycallingIshouldbegladtobe，hereafter，foreversilentuponit。But，unfortunately，thisisamatteruponwhich，afterallthathasoccurred，nomistakeorconfusionoftermsispossible——andinaffirmingthattheposteriorlobe，theposteriorcornu，andthehippocampusminorexistincertainApes，Iamstatingeitherthatwhichistrue，orthatwhichImustknowtobefalse。Thequestionhasthusbecomeoneofpersonalveracity。Formyself，Iwillacceptnootherissuethanthis，graveasitis，tothepresentcontroversy。