Conservative.
25 ounces. Do neb apply any logic to
this evidence ; my brain may weigh
88 ounces , and another man's may
weigh 04 , without his mental capacity
being equal to mine. The extent of
the so- called "gray" matter , how
ever , as indicated by the number and
complexity of the convolutions , maybe
bo a partial index to the mental capa
city of the individual. In considering
brain-weight , the body-weight should
always bo taken into account.
The process by which man has at
tained his position in the zoological
scale has not boon duo to physical
strength , for lie has conquered animals
possessing a far greater strength. His
supremacy in the struggle or exist
ence has been duo to the superiority of
his brain development.
Man possesses many structures of no
possible present use , which cannot be
explained upon any basis , except that
of descent from lower forms of life ,
where they were of value. I have
often referred in other articles to the
rudimentary muscles for moving the
cars , and the muscles in the skin ,
which , in the lower auimls , servo to
erect the hair , but which , in man ,
have no other function than to cause
the "gooseflesh" of fear or cold.
The pineal gland is , in all probabil
ity , the remnant of a third eye , at
times distinguishable , though not
operative , in the young of the New
Zealand reptile , the sphenodon. This
gland was formerly regarded by ortho
dox people as the seat of the soul.
The vermiform appendix , which many
surgeons so clearly love to remove , is
a remnant of a herbivorous ancestor
which required a large-sized caecum
for. the necessary retardation of a too
rapid process of digestion. The use
of the pitutary body , which is at the
base of the nose , is still a mystery.
It is true , of course , that wo cannot
produce the complete palaeoutological
history of the human animal , as we
can the history of the crocodiles , the
rhinoceroses and the horses , partly because -
cause palaeontology is a comparatively
new science , partly because no thor
ough search has been systematically
made perhaps because the land of
man's ancestors is now under the sea.
We have , however , such evidence as
the Neanderthal man , found in Prus
sia , about 1857 , and the Pithecanthro
pus Erectus , found in Java about five
years ago. The former appears to have
been a cave-dweller , and his skull
differs from that of any known man.
The latter ought to satisfy the imagin
ation of those who speculate concern
ing a ' ' missing link. ' ' Some interest
ing pictures of the skull have appeared
in a popular magazine.
Ono may assert that all the evidence
of palaeontology , of zoology , of com
parative anatomy and embryology is
unimportant , because the true distino-
\
tion between mankind and the other
animals is to bo found in the region
of mind and morals.
Now , as to the absence of language
among the lower forms of life of
course Darwin saw this difficulty
what is language , I ask. It is the com
munication of thought , feeling , ideas
generally to others by means of artic
ulate sounds. Can wo bo sure that
the lower animals are not possessed of
language in this sense ? I trow not.
Upon the other hand a very little ob
servation will convince anybody that
many animals , not only can , but do
convoy to their comrades their feel
ings and desires. And ho , indeed , will
bo a bold man who is prepared to deny
that the numerous sounds emitted by
animals play no part in this convey
ance. Is there , I ask , a greater gap be
tween the language used by such ani
mals and the few harsh sounds em
ployed by the lowest savages , than be
tween the language of the lowest
human beings and the elaborate speech
of a highly educated American or
European ? The sounds emitted by
dogs or horses may seem few , but it
is well to remember that , instead of
trying to learn what these animals
know , we use all our energy in trying
to teach them what we know. The
natural question is , where does sound
end and speech begin ? Who is pre
pared to draw the line ? I venture to
assert that the differences are a mere
matter of degree. In the face of our
ignorance upon this subject and the
small amount of attention that has
been paid to it , it is well to bo very
circumspect.
That organs anatomical , such as
the vocal organs of men and apes ,
should bo functionally different is , to
my mind , most improbable. The ac
tion of our vocal apparatus is depend
ent upon our organ of breathing , and
the manipulation of respiration is
partially dependent upon the position
of the body. The development of
our particular mode of speech may bo
corelativo of the erect position so char
acteristic of man.
The development of language is
merely one phase of the much larger
question of the mental distinctions be
tween man and the rest of the animal
world , and I venture to assert that the
law of the survival of the fittest is an
abundant explanation of mental eve
lution. Do not lot us allow any dust
to bo thrown in our eyes. This ques
tion docs not involve the mental cone
dition of highly civilized human beings -
ings ; it is merely a question of the
mental differences between the high
est animals , below man , and the least
civilized human beings. \
Everybody knows that the lowest
animals are not destitute of intelli
gence. In Darwin's Descent of Man ,
are to be found many well-authenti-
cated facts showing that the same
emotions and characteristics , such as
curiosity , imitation , memory , atten
tion and oven reason , are observed in
some animals , beside man. The love
of a dog for his owner is proverbial ;
maternal affection is ' strikingly de
veloped in many beasts. Monkeys are
successful as performers , in consequence
quence of their powers of attention
and imitation. Ants unquestionably
possess memory ; and if dogs and cats
do not dream , my observation must
bo very much , * at fault. Darwin has
recounted some extraordinary cases of
the reasoning of retriever clogs ; and
my experience convinces mo that the
dogma that man is the only reasoner
cannot bo supported by any scientific
evidence.
There is but one way in which all
these facts can bo interpreted viz :
by concluding that in all the so-called
"higher" mental attributes the true
difference between man and the lower
animals is , to quote from the prince of
observers , Sir John Lubbock , "one
of degree and not of kind. ' '
Darwin's of the
explanation psycho
logical side of evolution essentially
consists of the application of his prin
ciple of natural selection. Let me re
mark that , prior to his time , psychol
ogy was a more mass of verbosity and
metaphysical peudautry ; it was not a
science at all , and apart from physiol
ogy it is not now , and never can be a
science. Darwin's discussion of in
stinct in the Origin of Species , and
the light ho was able to throw upon ob
scure cases by the aid of natural selec
tionformed a suitable commencement
to true psychological science. In the
Descent of Man , he deals with the
mental characteristics of man and of
other animals in a masterly manner.
Congenital mental variation favorable
to its possessor is very often transmit
ted to the next generation ; and the con
tinued survival of the fittest from a
mental point of view must cause a
gradual development of ' the mental
faculties. All you need to do is to
satisfy yourself that the process of
natural selection is the truth , and
then the solution of the problem is
simple. The origin of language , and
of all the higher faculties , including
reason , is the result of congenital
mental variation , the survival of those
best suited to the ] environment , and
the transmission of such congenital
characteristics as are of benefit to the
individual in the strv-gglo for life. "I
cannot doubt , " writes Darwin , "that
language owes its origin to the imita
tion and modification of various natur
al sounds , the voices of the animals
and man's own instinctive cries , aided
and . ' '
by signs gestures.
In concluding this very brief sketch ,
I wish to give Darwin's answer to
those who are shocked at the idea of
/ " ' " > . . .
< f S.'i