ORIGIN AND PEDIGREE OF MAN.
The Application of the Theory of Descent to Man.—Its Immense
Importance and Logical Necessity.—Man’s Position in the Natural
System of Animals, among Disco-placental Animals.—Incorrect
Separation of the Bimana and Quadrumana.—Correct Separation of
Semi-apes from Apes.—Man’s Position in the Order of
Apes.—Narrow-nosed Apes (of the Old World) and Flat-nosed Apes
(of America).—Difference of the two Groups.—Origin of Man from
Narrow-nosed Apes.—Human Apes, or Anthropoides.—African Human
Apes (Gorilla and Chimpanzee).—Asiatic Human Apes (Orang and
Gibbon).—Comparison between the different Human Apes and the
different Races of Men.—Survey of the Series of the Progenitors
of Man.—Invertebrate Progenitors (Prochordata) and Vertebrate
Progenitors.
Of all the individual questions answered by the Theory of Descent, of
all the special inferences drawn from it, there is none of such
importance as the application of this doctrine to Man himself. As I
remarked at the beginning of this treatise, the inexorable necessity of
the strictest logic forces us to draw the special deductive conclusion
from the general inductive law of the theory, that Man has developed
gradually, and step by step, out of the lower Vertebrata, and more
immediately out of Ape-like Mammals. That this doctrine is an
inseparable part of the Theory of Descent, and hence also of the
universal Theory of Development in general, is recognized by all
thoughtful adherents of the theory, as well as by all its opponents who
reason logically.
But if the doctrine be true, then the recognition of the animal origin
and pedigree of the human race will necessarily affect more deeply than
any other progress of the human mind the views we form of all human
relations, and the aims of all human science. It must sooner or later
produce a complete revolution in the conception entertained by man of
the entire universe. I am firmly convinced that in future this immense
advance in our knowledge will be regarded as the beginning of a new
period of the development of Mankind. It can only be compared to the
discovery made by Copernicus, who was the first who ventured distinctly
to express the opinion, that it was not the sun which moved round the
earth, but the earth round the sun. Just as the _geocentric conception_
of the universe—namely, the false opinion that the earth was the centre
of the universe, and that all its other portions revolved round the
earth—was overthrown by the system of the universe established by
Copernicus and his followers, so the _anthropocentric conception_ of the
universe—the vain delusion that Man is the centre of terrestrial nature,
and that its whole aim is merely to serve him—is overthrown by the
application (attempted long since by Lamarck) of the theory of descent
to Man. As Copernicus’ system of the universe was mechanically
established by Newton’s theory of gravitation, we see Lamarck’s theory
of descent attain its causal establishment by Darwin’s theory of
selection. This comparison, which is very interesting in many respects,
I have discussed in detail elsewhere.
In order to carry out this extremely important application of the Theory
of Descent to man, with the necessary impartiality and objectivity, I
must above all beg the reader (at least for a short time) to lay aside
all traditional and customary ideas on the “Creation of Man,” and to
divest himself of the deep-rooted prejudices concerning it, which are
implanted in the mind in earliest youth. If he fail to do this, he
cannot objectively estimate the weight of the scientific arguments which
I shall bring forward in favour of the animal derivation of Man, that
is, of his origin out of Ape-like Mammals. We cannot here do better than
imagine ourselves with Huxley to be the inhabitants of another planet,
who, taking the opportunity of a scientific journey through the
universe, have arrived upon the earth and have there met with a peculiar
two-legged mammal called Man, diffused over the whole earth in great
numbers. In order to examine him zoologically, we should pack a number
of the individuals of different ages and from different lands (as we
should do with the other animals collected on the earth) into large
vessels filled with spirits of wine, and on our return to our own planet
we should commence the comparative anatomy of all these terrestrial
animals quite objectively. As we should have no personal interest in
Man, in a creature so entirely different from ourselves, we should
examine and criticise him as impartially and objectively as we should
the other terrestrial animals. In doing this we should, of course, in
the first place refrain from all conjectures and speculations on the
nature of his soul, or on the spiritual side of his nature, as it is
usually called. We should occupy ourselves solely with his bodily
structure, and with that natural conception of it which is offered by
the history of his individual development.
It is evident that in order correctly to determine Man’s position among
the other terrestrial organisms we must, in the first place, follow the
guidance of the natural system. We must endeavour to determine the
position which belongs to Man in the natural system of animals as
accurately and distinctly as possible. We shall then, if in fact the
theory of descent be correct, be able from his position in the system to
determine the real primary relationship, and the degree of consanguinity
connecting Man with the animals most like him. The hypothetical pedigree
of the human race will then follow naturally as the final result of this
anatomical and systematic inquiry.
Now if, by means of comparative anatomy and ontogeny, we seek for man’s
position in that Natural System of animals which formed the subject of
the last two chapters, the incontrovertible fact will at once present
itself to us, that man belongs to the tribe, or phylum, of the
Vertebrata. Every one of the characteristics, which so strikingly
distinguish all the Vertebrata from all Invertebrata, is possessed by
him. It has also never been doubted that of all the Vertebrata the
Mammals are most closely allied to Man, and that he possesses all the
characteristic features distinguishing them from all other Vertebrata.
If then we further carefully examine the three different main groups or
sub-classes of Mammals—the inter-connections of which were discussed in
our last chapter—there cannot be the slightest doubt that Man belongs to
the Placentals, and shares with all other Placentals, the important
characteristics which distinguish them from Marsupials and from
Cloacals. Finally, of the two main groups of placental Mammals, the
Deciduata and the Indeciduata, the group of Deciduata doubtless includes
Man. For the human embryo is developed with a genuine decidua, and is
thus absolutely distinguished from all the Indeciduata. Among the
Deciduata we distinguish two legions, the Zonoplacentalia, with
girdle-shaped placenta (Beasts of Prey and Pseudo-hoofed animals), and
the Discoplacentalia, with disc-shaped placenta (all the remaining
Deciduata). Man possesses a disc-shaped placenta, like all
Discoplacentalia; and thus our next question must be, What is man’s
position in this group?
In the last chapter we distinguished the following five orders of
Discoplacentalia: (1) Semi-apes; (2) Rodents; (3) Insectivora; (4) Bats;
(5) Apes. The last of these five orders, that of Apes, is, as every one
knows, in every bodily feature far more closely allied to Man than the
four others. Hence the only remaining question now is, whether, in the
system of animals, Man is to be directly classed in the order of genuine
Apes, or whether he is to be considered as the representative of a
special sixth order of Discoplacentalia, allied to, but more advanced
than, that of the Apes.
Linnæus in his system classed Man in the same order with genuine Apes,
Semi-apes, and Bats, which he called _Primates_; that is, lords, as it
were the highest dignitaries of the animal kingdom. But Blumenbach, of
Göttingen, separated Man as a special order, under the name of _Bimana_,
or two-handed, and contrasted him with the Apes and Semi-apes under the
name of _Quadrumana_, or four-handed. This classification was also
adopted by Cuvier and, consequently, by most subsequent zoologists. It
was not until 1863 that Huxley, in his excellent work, the “Evidence as
to Man’s Place in Nature,”(26) showed that this classification was based
upon erroneous ideas, and that the so-called “four-handed” Apes and
Semi-apes are “two-handed” as much as man is himself. The difference
between the foot and hand does not consist in the _physiological_
peculiarity that the first digit or thumb is opposable to the four other
digits or fingers in the hand, and is not so in the foot, for there are
wild tribes of men who can oppose the first or large toe to the other
four, just as if it were a thumb. They can therefore use their “grasping
foot” as well as a so-called “hinder hand,” like Apes. The Chinese
boatmen row with this hinder hand, the Bengal workmen weave with it. The
Negro, in whom the big toe is especially strong and freely moveable,
when climbing seizes hold of the branches of the trees with it, just
like the “four-handed” Apes. Nay, even the newly born children of the
most highly developed races of men, during the first months of their
life, grasp as easily with the “hinder hand” as with the “fore hand,”
and hold a spoon placed in its clutch as firmly with their big toe as
with the thumb! On the other hand, among the higher Apes, especially the
gorilla, hand and foot are differentiated as in man. (Compare Plate IV.)
The essential difference between hand and foot is therefore not
physiological, but _morphological_, and is determined by the
characteristic structure of the bony skeleton and of the muscles
attached to it. The ankle-bones differ from the wrist-bones in
arrangement, and the foot possesses three special muscles not existing
in the hand (a short flexor muscle, a short extensor muscle, and a long
fibular muscle). In all these respects, Apes and Semi-apes entirely
agree with man, and hence it was quite erroneous to separate him from
them as a special order on account of the stronger differentiation of
his hand and foot. It is the same also with all the other structural
features by means of which it was attempted to distinguish Man from
Apes; for example, the relative length of the limbs, the structure of
the skull, of the brain, etc. In all these respects, without exception,
the differences between Man and the higher Apes are less than the
corresponding differences between the higher and the lower Apes. Hence
Huxley, for reasons based on the most careful and most accurate
anatomical comparisons, arrives at the extremely important
conclusion—“Thus, whatever system of organs be studied, the comparison
of their modifications in the Ape series leads to one and the same
result, that the structural differences which separate Man from the
Gorilla and Chimpanzee are not so great as those which separate the
Gorilla from the lower Apes.” In accordance with this, Huxley, strictly
following the demands of logic, classes Man, Apes, and Semi-apes in a
single order, _Primates_, and divides it into the following seven
families, which are of almost equal systematic value: (1) Anthropini
(Man); (2) Catarrhini (genuine Apes of the Old World); (3) Platyrrhini
(genuine American Apes); (4) Arctopitheci (American clawed Apes); (5)
Lemurini (short-footed and long-footed Semi-apes, p. 255); (6)
Chiromyini (p. 256); (7) Galeopithecini (Flying Lemurs, p. 256).
SYSTEMATIC SURVEY
_Of the Families and Genera of Apes._
-----------------+------------------------+---------------------+------------------
_Sections_ | _Families_ | _Genera_ | _Systematic Name_
_of_ | _of_ | _of_ | _of_
_Apes._ | _Apes._ | _Apes._ | _the Genera._
-----------------+------------------------+---------------------+------------------
I. APES OF THE NEW WORLD (+Hesperopitheci+), OR FLAT-NOSED APES (+Platyrrhini+).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A. =Platyrrhini= { I. Silky apes { 1. Brush ape 1. Midas
=with claws= { _Hapalida_ { 2. Lion ape 2. Jacchus
{
+Arctopitheci+ {
{ II. Flat-nosed, { 3. Squirrel ape 3. Chrysothrix
{ without prehensile { 4. Leaping ape 4. Callithrix
B. =Platyrrhini= { tail { 5. Nocturnal ape 5. Nyctipithecus
=with blunt= { _Aphyocerca_ { 6. Tail ape 6. Pithecia
=nails= {
{ III. Flat-nosed, { 7. Rolling ape 7. Cebus
+Dysmopitheci+ { with prehensile { 8. Climbing ape 8. Ateles
{ tail { 9. Woolly ape 9. Lagothrix
{ _Labidocerca_ { 10. Howling ape 10. Mycetes
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
II. APES OF THE OLD WORLD (+Heopitheci+), OR NARROW-NOSED APES (+Catarrhini+).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
{ IV. Tailed Catarrhini, {
{ with { 11. Pavian 11. Cynocephalus
C. =Tailed= { cheek-pouches { 12. Macaque 12. Innus
=Catarrhini= { _Ascoparea_ { 13. Sea cat 13. Cercopithecus
{
+Menocerca+ { V. Tailed Catarrhini, {
{ without { 14. Holy ape 14. Semnopithecus
{ cheek-pouches { 15. Short ape 15. Colobus
{ _Anasca_ { 16. Nose ape 16. Nasalis
{ { 17. Gibbon 17. Hylobates
{ VI. Human apes { 18. Orang-Outan 18. Satyrus
D. =Tailless= { _Anthropoides_ { 19. Chimpanzee 19. Engeco
=Catarrhini= { { 20. Gorilla 20. Gorilla
{
+Lipocerca+ { VII. Men { 21. Ape-like man, 21. Pithecanthropus
{ _Erecti_ { or speechless man (Alalus)
{ (_Anthropi_) { 22. Talking man 22. Homo
----------------------------------------------------------------
Straight-haired men
_Lissotrichi_
|
Woolly-haired men |
_Ulotrichi_ |
| |
| |
\-------------v-------------/
Speechless men (_Alali_), or
Ape-like men (_Pithecanthropi_)
|
Gorilla |
_Gorilla_ | Orang
Chimpanzee | | _Satyrus_
_Engeco_ | | | Gibbon
| | | | _Hylobates_
| | | | |
\------v------/ | | |
African \-------v--------/
Man-like Apes Asiatic
| Man-like Apes
| |
\----------v-----------/
=Man-like Apes= Nose apes
+Anthropoides+ _Nasalis_
| |
Silk apes | Tall apes |
_Arctopitheci_ | _Semnopithecus_ |
| Clutch-tails | | |
| _Labidocerca_ | | |
| | | \-v----------/
| | | Sea cat | Pavian
\-----v-------/ | _Cercopithecus_ | _Cynocephalus_
Flap-tails | | | |
_Aphyocerca_ | | | |
\--------------v--------------/
=Flat-nosed Apes= Tailed Narrow-nosed apes
+Platyrrhini+ _Catarrhina menocerca_
| =Narrow-nosed=
| +Catarrhini+
| |
| |
\--------------v---------------/
=Apes=
+Simiæ+
|
|
Semi-apes
_Prosimiæ_
If we wish to arrive at a natural system, and consequently at the
pedigree of the Primates, we must go a step further still, and entirely
separate the Semi-apes, or Prosimiæ, (Huxley’s last three families),
from Genuine Apes, or Simiæ (the first four families). For, as I have
already shown in my General Morphology, and explained in the last
chapter, the Semi-apes differ in many and important respects from
Genuine Apes, and in their individual forms are more closely allied to
the various other orders of Discoplacentalia. Hence the Semi-apes must
probably be considered as the remnants of the common primary group, out
of which the other orders of Discoplacentalia, and, it may be, all
Deciduata, have developed as two diverging branches. (Gen. Morph. ii.
pp. 148 and 153.) But man cannot be separated from the order of Genuine
Apes, or Simiæ, as he is in every respect more closely allied to the
higher Genuine Apes than the latter are to the lower Genuine Apes.
_Genuine Apes_ (Simiæ) are universally divided into two perfectly
natural groups, namely, the Apes of the New World, or American Apes, and
the Apes of the Old World, which are indigenous to Asia and Africa, and
which formerly also existed in Europe. These two classes differ
principally in the formation of the nose, and they have been named
accordingly. American Apes have flat noses, so that the nostrils are in
front, not below; hence they are called _Flat Noses_ (Platyrrhini). On
the other hand, the Apes of the Old World have a narrow cartilaginous
bridge, and the nostrils turned downwards, as in man; they are,
therefore, called _Narrow Noses_ (Catarrhini). Further, the jaw, which
plays an important part in the classification of Mammals, is essentially
distinct in these two groups. All Catarrhinæ, or Apes of the Old World,
have exactly the same jaws as Man, namely, in each jaw four incisors
above and below, then on each side a canine tooth and five cheek teeth,
of which two are pre-molars and three molars, altogether thirty-two
teeth. But all Apes of the New World, all Platyrrhini, have four more
cheek teeth, namely, three pre-molars and three molars on each side,
above and below: they consequently possess thirty-six teeth. Only one
small group forms an exception to this rule, namely, the _Arctopitheci_,
or _Clawed Apes_, in whom the third molar has degenerated, and they
accordingly have on each half of their jaw three pre-molars and two
molars. They also differ from the other Platyrrhini by having claws on
the fingers of their hands and the toes of their feet, not nails like
Man and the other Apes. This small group of South American Apes, which
includes among others the well-known pretty little Midas-monkey and the
Jacchus, must probably be considered only as a peculiarly developed
lateral branch of the Platyrrhini.
Now, if we ask what evidence can be drawn, as to the pedigree of Apes,
from the above facts, we must conclude that all the Apes of the New
World have developed out of one tribe, for they all possess the
characteristic jaw and the nasal formation of the Platyrrhini. In like
manner it follows that all the Apes of the Old World must be derived
from one and the same common primary form, which possessed the same
formation of nose and jaw as all the still living Catarrhini. Further,
it can scarcely be doubted that the Apes of the New World, taken as an
entire tribe, are either derived from those of the Old World, or (to
express it more vaguely and cautiously) both are diverging branches of
one and the same tribe of Apes. We also arrive at the exceedingly
important conclusion—which is of the utmost significance in regard to
Man’s distribution on the earth’s surface—that Man _has developed out
of the Catarrhini_. For we cannot discover a zoological character
distinguishing him in a higher degree from the allied Apes of the Old
World than that in which the most divergent forms of this group are
distinguished from one another. This is the important result of Huxley’s
careful anatomical examination of the question, and it cannot be too
highly estimated. The anatomical differences between Man and the most
human-like Catarrhini (Orang, Gorilla, Chimpanzee) are in every respect
less than the anatomical differences between the latter and the lowest
stages of Catarrhini, more especially the Dog-like Baboon. This
exceedingly important conclusion is the result of an impartial
anatomical comparison of the different forms of Catarrhini.
If, therefore, we recognise the natural system of animals as the guide
to our speculations, and establish upon it our pedigree, we must
necessarily come to the conclusion that _the human race is a small
branch of the group of Catarrhini, and has developed out of long since
extinct Apes of this group in the Old World_. Some adherents of the
Theory of Descent have thought that the American races of Men have
developed, independently of those of the Old World, out of American
Apes. I consider this hypothesis to be quite erroneous, for the complete
agreement of all mankind with the Catarrhini, in regard to the
characteristic formation of the nose and jaws, distinctly proves that
they are of the same origin, and that they developed out of a common
root after the Platyrrhini, or American Apes, had already branched off
from them. The primæval inhabitants of America, as is proved by numerous
ethnographical facts, immigrated from Asia, and partly perhaps from
Polynesia (or even from Europe).
There still exist great difficulties in establishing an accurate
pedigree of the Human Race; this only can we further assert, that the
nearest progenitors of man were tail-less Catarrhini (Lipocerca),
resembling the still living Man-like Apes. These evidently developed at
a late period out of tailed Catarrhini (Menocerca), the original form of
Ape. Of those tail-less Catarrhini, which are now frequently called
Man-like Apes, or Anthropoides, there still exist four different genera
containing about a dozen different species.
The largest Man-like Ape is the famous _Gorilla_ (called Gorilla engena,
or Pongo gorilla), which is indigenous to the tropics of western Africa,
and was first discovered by the missionary, Dr. Savage, in 1847, on the
banks of the river Gaboon. Its nearest relative is the _Chimpanzee_
(Engeco troglodytes, or Pongo troglodytes), also indigenous to western
Africa, but considerably smaller than the Gorilla, which surpasses man
in size and strength. The third of the three large Man-like Apes is the
_Orang_, or _Orang Outang_, indigenous to Borneo and the other Sunda
Islands, of which two kindred species have recently been distinguished,
namely, the large Orang (Satyrus orang, or Pithecus satyrus) and the
small Orang (Satyrus morio, or Pithecus morio). Lastly, there still
exists in southern Asia the genus _Gibbon_ (Hylobates), of which from
four to eight different species are distinguished. They are considerably
smaller than the three first-named Anthropoides, and in most
characteristics differ more from Man.
The tail-less Man-like Apes—especially since we have become more
intimately acquainted with the Gorilla, and its connection with Man by
the application of the Theory of Descent—have excited such universal
interest, and called forth such a flood of writings, that there is no
occasion for me here to enter into any detail about them. The reader
will find their relations to Man fully discussed in the excellent works
of Huxley,(26) Carl Vogt,(27) Büchner,(43) and Rolle.(28) I shall
therefore confine myself to stating the most important general
conclusion resulting from their thorough comparison with Man, namely,
that each one of the four Man-like Apes stands nearer to Man in one or
several respects than the rest, but that no one of them can in every
respect be called absolutely the most like Man. The Orang stands nearest
to Man in regard to the formation of the brain, the Chimpanzee in
important characteristics in the formation of the skull, the Gorilla in
the development of the feet and hands, and, lastly, the Gibbon in the
formation of the thorax.
Thus, from a careful examination of the comparative anatomy of the
Anthropoides, we obtain a similar result to that obtained by Weisbach,
from a statistical classification and a thoughtful comparison of the
very numerous and careful measurements which Scherzer and Schwarz made
of the different races of Men during their voyage in the Austrian
frigate _Novara_ round the earth. Weisbach comprises the final result of
his investigations in the following words: “_The ape-like
characteristics of Man_ are by no means concentrated in one or another
race, but are distributed in particular parts of the body, among the
different races, in such a manner that each is endowed with some
heirloom of this relationship—one race more so, another less, and even
we Europeans cannot claim to be entirely free from evidences of this
relationship.”[5]
I must here also point out, what in fact is self-evident, that not one
of all the still living Apes, and consequently not one of the so-called
Man-like Apes, can be the progenitor of the Human Race. This opinion, in
fact, has never been maintained by thoughtful adherents of the Theory of
Descent, but it has been assigned to them by their thoughtless
opponents. The Ape-like progenitors of the Human Race are long since
extinct. We may possibly still find their fossil bones in the tertiary
rocks of southern Asia or Africa. In any case they will, in the
zoological system, have to be classed in the group of _tail-less
Narrow-nosed Apes_ (Catarrhini Lipocerci, or Anthropoides).
The genealogical hypotheses, to which we have thus far been led by the
application of the Theory of Descent to Man, present themselves to every
clearly and logically reasoning person as the direct results from the
facts of comparative anatomy, ontogeny, and palæontology. Of course our
phylogeny can indicate only in a very general way the outlines of the
human pedigree. Phylogeny is the more in danger of becoming erroneous
the more rigorously it is applied in detail to special animal forms
known to us. However, we can, even now, with approximate certainty
distinguish at least the following twenty-two stages of the ancestors of
Man. Fourteen of these stages belong to the Vertebrata, and eight to the
Invertebrate ancestors of Man (Prochordata.)
THE CHAIN OF THE ANIMAL ANCESTORS, OR THE SERIES OF THE PROGENITORS, OF
MAN.
(Comp. Ch. XX., XXI.; Plate XIV. and p. 22.)
FIRST HALF OF THE SERIES OF THE ANCESTORS OF MAN.
INVERTEBRATE ANCESTORS OF MAN (Prochordata).
FIRST STAGE: +Monera+.
The most ancient ancestors of Man, as of all other organisms, were
living creatures of the simplest kind imaginable, _organisms without
organs_, like the still living Monera. They consisted of simple,
homogeneous, structureless and formless little lumps of mucous or
albuminous matter (protoplasm), like the still living Protamœba
primitiva. (Compare vol. i. p. 186, Fig. 1.) The _form value_ of these
most ancient ancestors of man was not even equal to that of a cell, but
merely that of a _cytod_ (compare vol. i. p. 347); for, as in the case
of all Monera, the little lump of protoplasm did not as yet possess a
cell-kernel. The first of these Monera _originated_ in the beginning of
the Laurentian period by _spontaneous generation_, or archigony, out of
so-called “inorganic combinations,” namely, out of simple combinations
of carbon, oxygen, hydrogen, and nitrogen. The assumption of this
spontaneous generation, that is, of a mechanical origin of the first
organisms from inorganic matter, has been proved in our thirteenth
chapter to be a necessary hypothesis. (Compare vol. i. p. 338.) A
direct _proof_ of the earlier existence of this most ancient ancestral
stage, based upon the fundamental law of biogeny, is possibly still
furnished by the circumstance that, according to the assertions of many
investigators, in the beginning of the development of the egg, the
cell-kernel, or nucleus, disappears, and the egg-cell thus relapses to
the lower stage of the cytod (Monerula, p. 124; _relapse_ of the
nucleated plastid into a non-nucleated condition). The assumption of
this first stage is necessary for most important general reasons.
SECOND STAGE: +Amœbæ+.
The second ancestral stage of Man, as of all the higher animals and
plants, is formed by _a simple cell_, that is, a little piece of
protoplasm enclosing a kernel. There still exist large numbers of
similar “single-celled organisms.” Among them the common, simple Amœbæ
(vol. i. p. 188, Fig. 2) cannot have been essentially different from
these progenitors. The _form value_ of every Amœba is essentially the
same as that still possessed by the egg of Man, and by the egg of all
other animals. (Vol. i. p. 189, Fig. 3.) The naked egg-cells of Sponges,
which creep about exactly like Amœbæ, cannot be distinguished from them.
The egg-cell of Man, which like that of most other animals is surrounded
by a membrane, resembles an enclosed Amœba. The first single-celled
animals of this kind arose out of Monera by the differentiation of the
inner kernel and the external protoplasm; they lived in the earlier
Primordial period. An irrefutable proof that such single-celled primæval
animals really existed as the direct ancestors of Man, is furnished
according to the fundamental law of biogeny (vol. i. p. 309) by the
fact that the human egg is nothing more than a simple cell. (Compare p.
124.)
THIRD STAGE: +Synamœbæ+.
In order to form an approximate conception of the organisation of those
ancestors of Man which first developed out of the single-celled Primæval
animals, it is necessary to trace the changes undergone by the human egg
in the beginning of its individual development. It is just here that
ontogeny guides us with the greatest certainty on to the track of
phylogeny. We have already seen that the egg of Man (in the same way as
that of all other Mammals), after fructification has taken place, falls
by self-division into a mass of simple and equi-formal Amœba-like cells
(vol. i. p. 190, Fig. 4 _D_). All these divided globules are at first
exactly like one another, naked cells containing a kernel, but without
covering; in many animals they show movements like those of the Amœbæ.
This ontogenetic stage of development which we called Morula (p. 125),
on account of its mulberry shape, is _a certain proof_ that in the early
primordial period there existed ancestors of man which possessed the
_form value_ of a mass of homogeneous, loosely connected cells. They may
be called a _community of Amœbæ_ (Synamœbæ). (Compare p. 127.) They
_originated_ out of the single-celled Primæval animals of the second
stage by repeated self-division and by the permanent union of the
products of this division.
FOURTH STAGE: +Ciliated Larva (Planæada)+.
In the course of the ontogenesis of most of the lower animals, and also
in that of the lowest Vertebrate animals, the Lanceolate Animals, or
Amphioxus, there first develops out of the Morula (Frontispiece, Fig. 3)
a ciliated larva (planula). Those cells, lying on the surface of the
homogeneous mass of cells, extend hair-like processes, or fringes of
hairs, which by striking against the water keep the whole body rotating.
The round many-celled body thus becomes differentiated, in that the
external cells covered with cilia differ from the non-ciliated internal
cells (Frontispiece, Fig. 4). In Man and in all other Vertebrate animals
(with the exception of the Amphioxus), as well as in all Arthropoda,
this stage of the ciliated larva has been lost, in the course of time,
by abbreviated inheritance. There must, however, have existed ancestors
of Man in the early Primordial period which possessed the form value of
these ciliated larvæ (Planæa, p. 125). A certain proof of this is
furnished by the Amphioxus, which is on the one hand related by blood to
Man, but on the other has retained down to the present day the stage of
the planula.
FIFTH STAGE: +Primæval Stomach Animals (Gastræada)+.
In the course of the individual development of Amphioxus, as well as in
the most different lower animals, there first arises out of the planula
the extremely important form of larva which we have named _stomach
larva_, or _gastrula_ (p. 126; Frontispiece, Fig. 5, 6). According to
the fundamental law of biogeny this gastrula proves the former existence
of an independent form of primæval animal of the same structure, and
this we have named primæval stomach animal, or Gastræa (pp. 127, 128).
These Gastræada must have existed during the older Primordial period,
and they must have also included the ancestors of man. A _certain
proof_ of this is furnished by the Amphioxus, which in spite of its
blood relationship to Man still passes through the stage of the gastrula
with a simple intestine and a double intestinal wall. (Compare Plate X.
Fig. _B 4_.)
SIXTH STAGE: +Gliding Worms (Turbellaria)+.
The human ancestors of the sixth stage which originated out of the
Gastræada of the fifth stage, were low worms, which, of all the forms of
worms known to us, were most closely allied to the Gliding Worms, or
Turbellaria, or at least upon the whole possessed their form value. Like
the Turbellaria of the present day, the whole surface of their body was
covered with cilia, and they possessed a simple body of an oval shape,
entirely without appendages. These acœlomatous worms did not as yet
possess a true body-cavity (cœlom) nor blood. They _originated_ in the
early primordial period out of the Gastræada, by the formation of a
middle germ-layer, or muscular layer, and also by the further
differentiation of the internal parts into various organs; more
especially the first formation of a nervous system, the simplest organs
of sense, the simplest organs for secretion (kidneys) and generation
(sexual organs). The proof that human ancestors existed of a similar
formation, is to be looked for in the circumstance that comparative
anatomy and ontogeny point to the lower acœlomatous Worms as the common
primary form, not merely of all higher Worms, but also of the four
higher tribes of animals. Now, of all the animals known to us, the
Turbellaria, which possess neither a body-cavity nor blood, are most
closely allied to these primæval acœlomatous Primary Worms.
SEVENTH STAGE: +Soft Worms (Scolecida)+.
Between the Turbellaria of the preceding stage and the Sack Worms of the
next stage, we must necessarily assume at least one connecting
intermediate stage. For the Tunicata, which of all known animals stand
nearest to the eighth stage, and the Turbellaria which most resemble the
sixth stage, indeed both belong to the lower division of the unsegmented
Worms; but still these two divisions differ so much from one another in
their organization, that we must necessarily assume the earlier
existence of extinct intermediate forms between the two. These
connecting links, of which no fossil remains exist, owing to the soft
nature of their bodies, we may comprise as _Soft Worms_, or Scolecida.
They developed out of the Turbellaria of the sixth stage by forming a
true body-cavity (a cœlom) and blood in their interior. It is difficult
to say which of the still living Cœlomati are nearest akin to these
extinct Scolecida; it may be the Acorn-worms (Balanoglossus). The proof
that even the direct ancestors of man belonged to these Scolecida, is
furnished by the comparative anatomy and the ontogeny of Worms and of
the Amphioxus. The form value of this stage must moreover have been
represented by several very different intermediate stages, in the wide
gap between Turbellaria and Tunicata.
EIGHTH STAGE: +Sack Worms (Himatega)+.
Under the name of Sack worms, or Himatega, we here allude in the eighth
place to those Cœlomati, out of which the most ancient skull-less
Vertebrata were directly developed. Among the Cœlomati of the present
day, the _Ascidians_ are the nearest relatives of these exceedingly
remarkable Worms, which connect the widely differing classes of
Invertebrate and Vertebrate animals. That the ancestors of man really
existed during the primordial period in the form of these Himatega, is
_distinctly proved_ by the exceedingly remarkable and important
agreement presented by the ontogeny of the Amphioxus and the Ascidia.
(Compare Plates XII. and XIII., also pp. 152, 200, etc.) From this fact
the earlier existence of Sack Worms may be inferred; they of all known
worms were most closely related to our recent Tunicates, especially to
the freely swimming young forms or larvæ of the simple Sea-squirts
(Ascidia, Phallusia). They originated out of the worms of the seventh
stage by the formation of a dorsal nerve-marrow (medulla tube), and by
the formation of the spinal rod (chorda dorsalis) which lies below it.
It is just the position of this central spinal rod, or axial skeleton,
between the dorsal marrow on the dorsal side, and the intestinal canal
on the ventral side, which is most characteristic of all Vertebrate
animals, including man, but also of the larvæ of the Ascidia. The form
value of this stage nearly corresponds with that which the larvæ of the
simple Sea-squirts possess at the time when they show the beginning of
the dorsal marrow and spinal rod. (Plate XII. Fig. _A 5_: compare the
explanation of these figures in the Appendix.)
SECOND HALF OF THE SERIES OF HUMAN ANCESTORS. VERTEBRATE ANIMAL
ANCESTORS OF MAN (Vertebrata).
NINTH STAGE: +Skull-less Animals (Acrania)+.
The series of human ancestors, which in accordance with their whole
organisation we have to consider as Vertebrate animals, begins with the
Skull-less animals, or Acrania, of whose nature the still living
Lancelet (Amphioxus lanceolatus, Plate XII. _B_, XIII. _B_) gives us a
faint idea. Since this little animal in its earliest embryonal state
entirely agrees with the Ascidia, and in its further development shows
itself to be a true Vertebrate animal, it forms a direct transition from
the Vertebrata to the Invertebrata. Even if the human ancestors of the
ninth stage in many respects differed from the Amphioxus—the last
surviving representative of the Skull-less animals—yet they must have
resembled it in its most essential characteristics, in the absence of
head, skull, and brain. Skull-less animals of such structure—out of
which animals with skulls developed at a later period—lived during the
primordial period, and originated out of the Himatega of the eighth
stage by the formation of the metamera, or body segments, as also by the
further differentiation of all organs, especially the more perfect
development of the dorsal nerve-marrow and the spinal rod lying below
it. Probably the separation of the two sexes (gonochorism) also began at
this stage, whereas all the previously mentioned invertebrate ancestors
(apart from the 3—4 first neutral stages) exhibited the condition of
hermaphrodites (hermaphroditism). (Compare vol. i. p. 196.) The _certain
proof_ of the former existence of these skull-less and brainless
ancestors of man, is furnished by the comparative anatomy and the
ontogeny of the Amphioxus and of the Craniota.
TENTH STAGE: +Single-nostriled Animals (Monorrhina)+.
Out of the Skull-less ancestors of man there arose in the first place
animals with skulls, or Craniota, of the most imperfect nature. The
lowest stage of all still living Craniota is occupied by the class of
round-mouthed animals, or Cyclostoma, namely, the Hag (Myxinoidea) and
Lampreys (Petromyzontia). From the internal organization of these
single-nostriled animals, or Monorrhina, we can form an approximate idea
of the nature of the human ancestors of the tenth stage. In the former,
as also in the latter, skull and brain must have been of the simplest
form, and many important organs, as for example, the swimming bladder,
the sympathetic nerve, the spleen, the jaw skeleton, and both pairs of
legs, may probably as yet not have existed. However, the pouch gills and
the round sucking mouth of the Cyclostoma must probably be looked upon
as purely adaptive characteristics, which did not exist in the
corresponding stage of ancestors. The single-nostriled animals
originated during the primordial period out of the skull-less animals by
the anterior end of the dorsal marrow developing into the brain, and the
anterior end of the dorsal chord into the skull. The _certain proof_
that such single-nostriled and jawless ancestors of man did exist, is
found in the “comparative anatomy of the Myxinoidea.”
ELEVENTH STAGE: +Primæval Fish (Selachii.)+.
Of all known Vertebrate animals, the ancestors of the Primæval Fish
probably showed most resemblance to the still living Sharks (Squalacei).
They _originated_ out of the single-nostriled animals by the division of
the single nostril into two lateral halves, by the formation of a
sympathetic nervous system, a jaw skeleton, a swimming bladder, and two
pairs of legs (breast fins or fore-legs, and ventral fins or hind-legs).
The internal organisation of this stage may probably, upon the whole,
have corresponded to the lowest species of Sharks known to us; the
swimming bladder was however more strongly developed; in the case of the
latter it exists only as a rudimentary organ. They _lived_ as early as
the Silurian period, as is proved by the fossil remains of sharks (teeth
and fin spines) from the Silurian strata. A _certain proof_ that the
Silurian ancestors of man and of all the other double-nostriled animals
were nearest akin to the Selachii, is furnished by the comparative
anatomy of the latter; it shows that the relations of organisation in
all Amphirrhina can be derived from those of the Selachii.
TWELFTH STAGE: +Mud Fish (Dipneusta)+.
Our twelfth ancestral stage is formed by Vertebrate animals which
probably possessed a remote resemblance to the still living Salamander
fish (Ceratodus, Protopterus, Lepidosiren, p. 212). They _originated_
out of the Primæval fish (probably at the beginning of the palæolithic,
or primary period) by adaptation to life on land, and by the
transformation of the swimming bladder into an air-breathing lung, and
of the nasal cavity (which now opened into the cavity of the mouth)
into air passages. The series of the ancestors of man which breathed air
through lungs began at this stage. Their organisation may probably in
many respects have agreed with that of the still living Ceratodus and
Protopterus, but at the same time may have been very different. They
probably lived at the beginning of the Devonian period. Their existence
is _proved_ by comparative anatomy, which shows the Dipneusta to be an
intermediate stage between the Selachii and Amphibia.
THIRTEENTH STAGE: +Gilled Amphibians (Sozobranchia)+.
Out of those Mud Fish, which we considered the primary forms of all the
Vertebrata which breathe through lungs, there developed the class of
Amphibia as the main line (pp. 205, 216). Here began the five-toed
formation of the foot (the Pentadactyla), which was thence transmitted
to the higher Vertebrata, and finally also to Man. The gilled Amphibians
must be looked upon as our most ancient ancestors of the class of
Amphibia; besides possessing lungs they retained throughout life regular
gills, like the still living Proteus and Axolotl (p. 218). They
_originated_ out of the Dipneusta by the transformation of the paddling
fins into five-toed legs, and also by the more perfect differentiation
of various organs, especially of the vertebral column. In any case they
existed about the middle of the palæolithic, or primary period, possibly
even before the Coal period; for fossil Amphibia are found in coal. The
_proof_ that similar gilled Amphibians were our direct ancestors, is
given by the comparative anatomy and the ontogeny of Amphibia and
Mammals.
FOURTEENTH STAGE: +Tailed Amphibians (Sozura)+.
Our amphibious ancestors which retained their gills throughout life,
were replaced at a later period by other Amphibia, which, by
metamorphosis, lost the gills which they had possessed in early life,
but retained the tail, as in the case of the salamanders and newts of
the present day. (Compare p. 218.) They _originated_ out of the gilled
Amphibians by accustoming themselves in early life to breathe only
through gills, and later in life only through lungs. They probably
existed even in the second half of the primary, namely, during the
Permian period, but possibly even during the Coal period. The _proof_ of
their existence lies in the fact that tailed Amphibians form a necessary
intermediate link between the preceding and succeeding stages.
FIFTEENTH STAGE: +Primæval Amniota (Protamnia)+.
The name Protamnion we have given to the primary form of the three
higher classes of Vertebrate animals, out of which the Proreptilia and
the Promammalia developed as two diverging branches (p. 222). It
_originated_ out of unknown tailed Amphibia by the complete loss of the
gills, by the formation of the amnion, of the cochlea, and of the round
window in the auditory organ, and of the organs of tears. It probably
originated in the beginning of the mesolithic or secondary period,
perhaps even towards the end of the primary, in the Permian period. The
_certain proof_ that it once existed lies in the comparative anatomy and
the ontogeny of the Amniota; for all Reptiles, Birds, and Mammals,
including Man, agree in so many important characteristics that they
must, with full assurance, be admitted to be the descendants of a
single common primary form, namely, of the Protamnion.
SIXTEENTH STAGE: +Primary Mammals (Promammalia)+.
We now find ourselves more at home with our ancestors. From the
sixteenth up to the twenty-second stage they all belong to the large and
well known class of Mammals, the confines of which we ourselves have as
yet not transgressed. The common, long since extinct and unknown primary
forms of all Mammalia, which we have named Promammalia, were at all
events, of all still living animals, of the class most closely related
to the Beaked animals, or Ornithostoma (Ornithorhynchus, Echidna, p.
233). They differed from the latter, however, by the teeth present in
their jaws. The formation of the beak in the Beaked animals of the
present day must be looked upon as an adaptive characteristic which
developed at a later period. The Promammalia arose out of the Protamnia
(probably only at the beginning of the secondary period, namely, in the
Trias) by various advances in their internal organisation, as also by
the transformation of the epidermal scales into hairs, and by the
formation of a mammary gland which furnished milk for the nourishment of
the young ones. The _certain proof_ that the Promammalia—inasmuch as
they are the common primary forms of all Mammals—also belong to our
ancestors, lies in the comparative anatomy and the ontogeny of Mammalia
and Man.
SEVENTEENTH STAGE: +Pouched Animals (Marsupialia)+.
The three sub-classes of Mammalia—as we have already seen—stand in such
a relation to one another that the Marsupials, both as regards their
anatomy and their ontogeny and phylogeny, form the direct transition
from the Monotrema to Placental animals (p. 247). Consequently, human
ancestors must also have existed among Marsupials. They _originated_ out
of the Monotrema—which include the primary Mammalia, or Promammalia—by
the division of the cloaca into the rectum and the urogenital sinus, by
the formation of a nipple on the mammary gland, and by the partial
suppression of the clavicles. The oldest Marsupials at all events
existed as early as the Jura period (perhaps even in the Trias); during
the Chalk period they passed through a series of stages preparing the
way for the origin of Placentalia. The certain proof of our derivation
from Marsupials—nearly akin to the still living opossum and kangaroo in
their essential inner structure—is furnished by the comparative anatomy
and the ontogeny of Mammalia.
EIGHTEENTH STAGE: +Semi-apes (Prosimiæ)+.
The small group of Semi-apes, as we have already seen, is one of the
most important and most interesting orders of Mammalia. It contains the
direct primary forms of Genuine Apes, and thus also of Man. Our Semi-ape
ancestors probably possessed only a very faint external resemblance to
the still living, short-footed Semi-apes (Brachytarsi), especially the
Maki, Indri, and Lori (p. 256). They _originated_ (probably at the
beginning of the Cenolithic, or Tertiary period) out of Marsupials of
Rat-like appearance by the formation of a placenta, the loss of the
marsupium and the marsupial bones, and by the higher development of the
commissures of the brain. The _certain proof_ that Genuine Apes, and
hence also our own race, are the direct descendants of Semi-apes, is to
be found in the comparative anatomy and the ontogeny of Placental
animals.
NINETEENTH STAGE: +Tailed Apes (Menocerca)+.
Of the two classes of Genuine Apes which developed out of the Semi-apes,
it is only the narrow-nosed, or Catarrhini, which are closely related by
blood to Man. Our older ancestors from this group probably resembled the
still living Nose-apes and Holy-apes (Semnopithecus), which possess jaws
and narrow noses like Man, but have a long tail, and their bodies
densely covered with hair (p. 271). The Tailed Apes with narrow noses
(Catarrhini Menocerci) _originated_ out of Semi-apes by the
transformation of the jaw, and by the claws on their toes becoming
changed into nails; this probably took place as early as the older
Tertiary period. The _certain proof_ of our derivation from Tailed
Catarrhini is to be found in the comparative anatomy and the ontogeny of
Apes and of Man.
TWENTIETH STAGE: +Man-like Apes (Anthropoides)+.
Of all still living Apes the large tail-less, narrow-nosed Apes, namely,
the Orang and Gibbon in Asia, the Gorilla and Chimpanzee in Africa, are
most nearly akin to Man. It is probable that these Man-like Apes, or
Anthropoides, originated during the Mid-tertiary period, namely, in the
Miocene period. They developed out of the Tailed Catarrhini of the
preceding stage—with which they essentially agree—by the loss of the
tail, the partial loss of the hairy covering and by the excessive
development of that portion of the brain just above the facial portion
of the skull. There do not exist direct human ancestors among the
Anthropoides of the present day, but they certainly existed among the
unknown extinct Human Apes of the Miocene period. The _certain proof_ of
their former existence is furnished by the comparative anatomy of
Man-like Apes and of Man.
TWENTY-FIRST STAGE: +Ape-like Men (Pithecanthropi)+.
Although the preceding ancestral stage is already so nearly akin to
genuine Men that we scarcely require to assume an intermediate
connecting stage, still we can look upon the speechless Primæval Men
(Alali) as this intermediate link. These Ape-like men, or
Pithecanthropi, very probably existed towards the end of the Tertiary
period. They originated out of the Man-like Apes, or Anthropoides, by
becoming completely habituated to an upright walk, and by the
corresponding stronger differentiation of both pairs of legs. The fore
hand of the Anthropoides became the human hand, their hinder hand became
a foot for walking. Although these Ape-like Men must not merely by the
external formation of their bodies, but also by their internal mental
development, have been much more akin to real Men than the Man-like Apes
could have been, yet they did not possess the real and chief
characteristic of man, namely, the articulate human language of words,
the corresponding development of a higher consciousness, and the
formation of ideas. The _certain proof_ that such Primæval Men without
the power of speech, or Ape-like Men, must have preceded men possessing
speech, is the result arrived at by an inquiring mind from comparative
philology (from the “comparative anatomy” of language), and especially
from the history of the development of language in every child (“glottal
ontogenesis”) as well as in every nation (“glottal phylogenesis”).
TWENTY-SECOND STAGE: +Men (Homines)+.
Genuine Men _developed_ out of the Ape-like Men of the preceding stage
by the gradual development of the animal language of sounds into a
connected or articulate language, of words. The development of this
function, of course, went hand in hand with the development of its
organs, namely, the higher differentiation of the larynx and the brain.
The transition from speechless Ape-like Men to Genuine or Talking Men
probably took place at the beginning of the Quaternary period, namely,
in the Diluvial period, but possibly even at an earlier date, in the
more recent Tertiary. As, according to the unanimous opinion of most
eminent philologists, all human languages are not derived from a common
primæval language, we must assume a polyphyletic origin of language, and
in accordance with this a polyphyletic transition from speechless
Ape-like Men to Genuine Men.
ANCESTRAL SERIES OF THE HUMAN PEDIGREE.
M N = Boundary between the Invertebrate and Vertebrate Ancestors.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
_Epochs of the_ | _Geological Periods_ | _Animal_ | _Nearest Living_
_Organic_ | _of the_ | _Ancestral Stages_ | _Relatives of the_
_History of the_| _Organic History_ | _of_ | _Ancestral Stages._
_Earth._ | _of the Earth._ | _Man._ |
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
{ { 1. Monera { _Protogenes_
{ { (_Monera_) { _Protamœba_
{ {
{ { 2. Single-celled { Simple Amœbæ
{ { Primæval animals { (_Automœbæ_)
{ {
{ { 3. Many-celled { Communities of
{ { Primæval animals { Amœbæ
{ { { (_Synamœbæ_)
{ {
{ { 4. Ciliated planulæ { Planula larvæ
{ { (_Planæada_) {
I. { {
ARCHILITHIC { 1. Laurentian Period { 5. Primæval Intestinal { Gastrula larvæ
OR { { animals (_Gastræada_) {
{ 2. Cambrian Period {
PRIMORDIAL { { 6. Gliding Worms { _Rhabdocœla_
EPOCH { 3. Silurian Period { (_Turbellaria_) { _Dendrocœla_
{ {
{ { 7. Soft-worms { ?Between the Sea-squirts
{ { (_Scolecida_) { and Gliding worms
{ {
{ { 8. Sack worms { Sea-squirts
{ { (_Himatega_) { (_Ascidiæ_)
{ { M.................................................N
{ { 9. Skull-less { Lancelets
{ { (_Acrania_) { (_Amphioxi_)
{ {
{ { 10. Single-nostriled { Lampreys
{ { (_Monorrhina_) { (_Petromyzonta_)
{ (Compare p. 22, and {
{ Plate XIV. and its { 11. Primæval fish { Sharks
{ explanation.) { (_Selachii_) { (_Squalacei_)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
{ 4. Devonian Period { 12. Salamander fish { Mud fish
II. { { (_Dipneusta_) { (_Protopteri_)
PALÆOLITHIC { 5. Coal Period {
OR { { 13. Gilled Amphibia { (_Proteus_)
{ 6. Permian Period { (_Sozobranchia_) { Axolotl (_Siredon_)
PRIMARY { {
EPOCH { { 14. Tailed Amphibia { Water-newts
{ { (_Sozura_) { (_Tritons_)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
{ { 15. Primæval Amniota { ?Between the Tailed-Amphibia
III. { { (_Protamnia_) { and Primary
MESOLITHIC { 7. Trias Period { { mammals
OR { {
{ 8. Jura Period { 16. Primary Mammals { Beaked animals
SECONDARY { { (_Promammalia_) { (_Monotrema_)
EPOCH { 9. Chalk Period {
{ { 17. Pouched animals { Pouched rats
{ { (_Marsupialia_) { (_Didelphys_)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
{ { 18. Semi-apes { Lori (_Stenops_)
{ { (_Prosimiæ_) { Maki (_Lemur_)
{ {
IV. { { 19. Tailed Narrow-nosed { Nose apes
CENOLITHIC { 10. Eocene Period { Apes { Holy apes
OR { {
{ 11. Miocene Period { 20. Men-like Apes or { Gorilla, Chimpanzee,
TERTIARY { { Tail-less Narrow-nosed { Orang,
EPOCH { 12. Pliocene Period { Apes { Gibbon
{ {
{ { 21. Speechless Men or { Deaf and Dumb,
{ { Ape-like Men { Cretins or
{ { { Microcephali
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
V. { { {
QUATERNARY { 13. Diluvial Period { 22. Talking Men { Australians and
EPOCH { 14. Alluvial Period { { Papuans