THE MAMMALS AND MAN
The subject of our discussion is now narrowed down to the group of the
mammals. The mammals are characterised by two very obvious features:
a body-covering of hair, and a set of special glands in the female
which secrete milk for the nourishment of the young. These are constant
characters, and neither is ever found in any other group. As to how
the hair originated, nothing definite is known; but (while there are
certain difficulties in regard to the theory) it is on the whole
reasonable to suppose that the mammalian hair arose, as the bird's
feather undoubtedly did, as a modification of the reptile's scale. The
mammary gland appears to represent a modification of other skin glands,
either of sweat glands or more probably of the oil glands which exist
in connection with the hairs.
Another important character, already mentioned at the end of the last
chapter, is the diaphragm, a muscular partition separating the body
cavity into a thoracic and an abdominal portion. The diaphragm has
important functions in connection with the mechanism of breathing. By
means of it the thoracic cavity can be increased or diminished in size,
and air thus drawn into or expelled from the lungs. It is interesting
to observe that a similar partition, with the same function, occurs
in the Crocodiles, but this has different relations to the abdominal
organs, and has evidently evolved quite independently.
Very characteristic of the mammals are, further, their teeth, for
whereas the teeth of the reptiles are indefinite in number, and
generally very numerous, those of the mammal are relatively few, and
each species has a definite normal number. Moreover, the teeth of
the reptile are all of a kind, and they may be replaced almost any
number of times during the animal's life, whereas those of the mammal
show differentiation according to their respective functions, and are
only once changed, that is, when the milk teeth are replaced by the
permanent set. The teeth of the mammal are of four kinds: incisors, or
chisel-like cutting teeth, canines, which are especially well developed
in carnivorous species, and which are used in the tearing up of flesh,
etc., and two groups of grinders--premolars, which are replaced during
the animal's life, and molars, which occur only as permanent teeth.
[Illustration: FIG. 102.--_Pareiosaurus Baini._ Fossil skeleton from
the Permian of South Africa.]
[Illustration: FIG. 103.--Skull of Galesaurus, from the Permian of
South Africa.
_A_, From side; _B_, from below; _C_, from above; _D_, back tooth.]
[Illustration: FIG. 104.--Skull of Tritylodon from below.]
The mammals in all probability arose from a particular group of
reptiles which flourished in the Permian and Triassic periods, and
which disappeared very shortly afterwards. These pass under the name of
the Theromorpha, and a typical specimen, Pareiosaurus, is illustrated
in Fig. 102. The skull of another, illustrated in Fig. 103, shows
distinct indications of a mammal-like differentiation of the teeth. The
Tritylodon, whose skull is shown in Fig. 104, is an intermediate type
between this group and the mammals, some zoologists regarding it, as it
were, as the last reptile, others as the first of the mammals.
As to how the special mammalian features arose, or what special
conditions called them into existence, we are of course without
definite knowledge, for neither hair nor mammary glands are
recognisable in fossils. But it seems likely that the warm blood and
the hairy covering evolved in correlation with one another, and as
adaptions to meet a gradual cooling of the climate. It is certain at
all events that the present-day mammals (and also the birds) are far
better adapted for a cold environment than the reptiles, which very
easily get frozen to death; and it is also known that ice periods
occurred in South Africa, where many fossil Theromorpha and the
Tritylodon are found, at the time when these creatures existed; both of
which facts support the theory indicated.
At the present time the mammals are the highest and on the whole the
most successful of the vertebrate groups. They include the largest
and strongest, the swiftest-footed and the most intelligent of the
animal kind. They show refinements of the senses of sight, hearing, and
smell such as are met with nowhere else. They range from the Equator to
the coldest regions of the earth in which any food is to be found; they
people alike the forest and the plain, and have their representatives
both in the air and in the sea.
[Illustration: FIG. 105.--The Australian Duck-mole or Duck-billed
Platypus.]
The most lowly of the mammals are the Monotremes, which include the
well-known Australian duck-mole or duck-billed platypus, and two
species of spiny ant-eaters, one of which is found in Australia, the
other in New Guinea. The two types are shown in Figs. 105 to 107.
The best-known and most striking fact concerning these is that, like
the birds and reptiles, and unlike all other mammals, they lay eggs.
Beyond this feature they show many affinities with the reptiles, in
their skeleton for example, and particularly in their reproductive
organs. Another interesting fact is that the blood temperature, of
the ant-eater at least, is low, and varies considerably. It has been
found to range between 80 and 93 degrees Fahrenheit, whereas all other
mammals, so far as is known, have a blood temperature between 97 and
105, and moreover one that is remarkably constant for each species
during normal health. The brain development and the intelligence are
also much lower than in other mammals, though distinctly superior to
those met with among the reptiles. The method of rearing the young in
the case of the ant-eater (that of the duck-mole not being yet fully
known) is that the single egg is placed, as soon as it is laid, in the
pouch under the belly of the female. Here it hatches in a very short
time, and here the young animal remains for the first two or three
months of its life, being nourished by milk produced by the mammary
glands, which open into the pouch. It is certainly owing to the absence
of the competition of the higher mammals in the regions where they are
found, that these two creatures, so interesting from the standpoint of
Evolution, have been preserved to us.
[Illustration: FIG. 106.--New Guinea Spiny Ant-eater.]
[Illustration: FIG. 107.--Australian Spiny Ant-eater.]
The next group, the Marsupials, is the lowest in which we get the true
mammalian characteristic of the bearing of living young. For while
occasional members of other groups, of the reptiles especially, produce
live young, the actual state of affairs is fundamentally different. In
these latter the egg is merely retained in the genital duct until the
young creature emerges. It is merely hatched inside the body of the
mother instead of outside. But in the Marsupials the developing young
receive nourishment from the mother, during prenatal life, other than
what is contained in the yolk. This nourishment is obtained in the form
of a secretion from the wall of the uterus, there being as yet (with a
single partial exception) no real connection between mother and young.
The peculiar method of nourishing and protecting the young Marsupial
after birth is of course well known. The young are born in a very
immature and helpless condition, and are placed by the mother in her
pouch. The mouth becomes permanently attached to the nipple of the dam,
and the young creature remains thus for a considerable time, the milk
being pumped into it by the mammary gland rather than sucked in by the
efforts of the creature itself.
The Marsupials are further characterised by the possession of an extra
pair of bones in the pelvis, which function as supports for the pouch;
by the peculiar and primitive arrangement of the reproductive organs;
by their still poorly developed brain; and by their generally large
number of teeth, which reach a total of fifty or fifty-two in some
species, whereas forty-four is the ordinary maximum number in the main
mammal group. This last is to be regarded as a character derived from
the reptiles.
[Illustration: FIG. 108.--Kangaroo, with young.]
[Illustration: FIG. 109.--Newborn young of Kangaroo.]
It is very interesting to observe how, in Australia, where the
Marsupials have been free from the competition of other mammals,
they have evolved along many of the same general lines as the higher
group. We have indeed no marsupial whales, bats, or seals, but there
is a mole, very similar in its appearance and habits to our European
species, and a carnivorous type which closely resembles a wolf or
jackal; again we have bandicoots, occupying the same place in nature
as our rabbits and other rodents; tree-dwelling, squirrel-like forms;
and kangaroos, which compare in their mode of life, if not in their
appearance, with the cattle, deer, and antelopes of other countries.
The Marsupials are illustrated in Figs. 108 to 113. This group, so far
as can be judged from fossils, is considerably older than that of
the higher mammals, and everything points to some marsupial type as
a connecting link between the egg-laying Monotremes and the placental
mammals.
[Illustration: FIG. 110.--The Marsupial Mole.]
[Illustration: FIG. 111.--Tasmanian Wolf, a carnivor-like marsupial.]
[Illustration: FIG. 112.--Marsupials--Long-nosed Bandicoot.]
[Illustration: FIG. 113.--Squirrel-like marsupial (_Phascologale
penicillata_).]
As has previously been indicated, the most important characteristic
of the third great group is a modification of the membranes of the
embryo to form a connection between it and the wall of the uterus.
The allantois develops as a highly vascular membrane, the small blood
vessels of which are brought into very close contact with those in the
wall of the uterus. So that, while the blood of the mother does not
actually mix with that of the child, the two fluids are separated only
by thin membranes, through which nutritive substances easily pass. The
broad advantage of this is, of course, that the young animal passes
the earlier stages of its life inside the mother's body, where it is
exposed to a minimum of risk, is efficiently nourished, and from which
it is not sent forth into the world until it is tolerably well able to
look after itself.
[Illustration: FIG. 114.--Oeba Armadillo.
Photo: Berridge.]
[Illustration: FIG. 115.--Sea-cows.]
We shall now ask the reader to conceive a primitive placental mammal
type, and to consider briefly the relationships of the various groups
that have sprung from it. The group whose evolution has been perhaps
least progressive is that of the Edentates, including the sloths,
armadillos, and American ant-eaters (Fig. 114). Then, on the one hand,
we have the herbivorous types, including the remarkable sea-cows (Fig.
115), the rodents (Fig. 116), and the hoofed animals, leading up from
such comparatively primitive forms as the coneys (Fig. 117) to such
highly specialised types as the giraffe (Fig. 118). The other series of
groups are believed to be more nearly related to each other than to the
aforementioned, and the nearest approach to their common ancestor,
among modern mammals, is probably to be found in the Insectivora
(Figs. 119 and 120). Differing sharply from the Insectivora in their
possession of wings, but otherwise closely similar, are the bats (Fig.
121). From this same insectivor-like type have probably evolved the
whales (Fig. 122), the seals, etc. (Fig. 123), the carnivora (Fig.
124), and finally the primates, leading up through the lemurs to the
monkeys and man. Thus merely indicating the many and devious roads of
mammalian Evolution, we turn again to the one particular line that we
set out to follow.
[Illustration: FIG. 116.--Porcupine.]
[Illustration: FIG. 117.--Coney (Hyrax).]
[Illustration: FIG. 118.--Giraffe.
Photo by _Sport General_.]
[Illustration: FIG. 119.--_Centetes ecaudatus_, a primitive insectivor.]
[Illustration: FIG. 120.--Hedgehog.
Photo: Berridge.]
The Insectivora are by many of their features recognisable as low
types of placental mammals. They have a primitive type of skull, and
frequently show a rather marked similarity between the several classes
of teeth. The brain is relatively ill-developed, reminding one rather
strongly of the Marsupials, and the hemispheres show little if any
tendency to develop those wrinkles and fissures which always accompany
the higher type of intelligence. Probably the most primitive member of
the whole group is the Centetes from Madagascar, shown in Fig. 119. The
hedgehog and the shrews are its best-known examples. An interesting
point regarding the hedgehog is that, like few other mammals, it has
persisted almost unchanged from early tertiary times. It is thus to be
regarded as a very antique type, not only in its main features, but in
its details.
[Illustration: FIG. 121.--Vampires.]
[Illustration: FIG. 122.--Porpoises.]
[Illustration: FIG. 123.--Sea Lions.]
[Illustration: FIG. 124.--Indian Leopard.
Photo: Underwood.]
The Lemurs are an interesting group, standing, as they do, midway
between the primitive placental forms and the monkeys. Their special
home, as already mentioned, is Madagascar, to which some thirty-six of
the fifty known species are confined, but they occur also in Africa
and in South-Eastern Asia. They are arboreal and mostly nocturnal
in habits, and their food consists partly of fruit, etc., partly of
insects. They were formerly much more widely distributed, and many
fossils have been unearthed, for example, in North America. They
show certain characters of a distinctly primitive kind, such, for
instance, as their habit of hibernation. Their typical number of teeth
is thirty-six, the same as in the lower monkeys, but fossil forms are
known which possessed the full number of forty-four.
In their general build they show marked adaptation to their arboreal
life, and approach, some more and some less, the appearance of the
monkeys. The fore-limbs are considerably modified from the condition
in which they occur in ordinary mammals, in which they are placed
vertically under the body. They are placed in a more lateral position,
so that they can be moved through greater angles, and extended over
the head. In common language, they are ceasing to be legs, and are
becoming arms. As in the monkeys, the thumb and the great toe are
opposed to the other digits so as to render the hand and foot more
efficient as grasping organs. Hence the Lemurs may be included with
the apes as 'Quadrumana,' or four-handed animals. The fingers and toes
either bear claws, as in the lower animals, or flattened nails like
those of the higher apes and man, many species possessing the two
types of structures on different digits. The face is fox-like, and
lacks the human expression that is seen in the monkeys. The brain shows
considerable variation, being in some species far more primitive, in
others rather more highly developed, than in the lower monkeys.
[Illustration: FIG. 125.--Ring-tailed Lemur.]
[Illustration: FIG. 126.--The Slow Lemur or Loris.]
[Illustration: FIG. 127.--The Tarsier (Lemur).]
The history of the group has been very completely made out from
fossils, and it is possible to work back to forms which, apart from
their known subsequent evolution, could not be definitely separated
from the ancestors of other mammal groups. The Lemurs are illustrated
in Figs. 125 to 127.
The monkeys, to which we now turn, are divided into two groups,
the American or Western and the Eastern or Old-World types, each
of which is definitely confined to the regions indicated by the
names. The Western apes (Figs. 128 and 129) are by much the lower
group of the two, and in fact they lead back to fossil forms which
cannot be definitely distinguished from the Lemurs. They are a side
branch of the monkey stem, but are in all probability the nearest
living representatives of the first of our ape ancestors. They are
characterised by a wide septum between the nostrils, which makes the
latter open in an outward direction, a feature which enables them to
be distinguished at a glance from the other group. They have further
a prehensile tail, which is of much use in climbing, and generally
thirty-six teeth, or four more than the Old-World group. The lowest
of them are the well-known Marmosets, which have claws on all the
digits except the great toe, which last has a nail. These are further
characterised by the presence of four nipples, all other monkeys having
only two. Correlated with this feature, the Marmosets normally bear two
or three young at a birth, whereas in all other apes one is the usual
number.
[Illustration: FIG. 128.--A Marmoset (_Hapale jacchus_).]
The Eastern monkeys have thirty-two teeth, the same number as in man;
the septum between the nostrils is narrow, so that these open downwards
and forwards; the tail is never prehensile and is frequently absent.
They include such well-known forms as the baboons, the Gibraltar ape,
the sacred Hanuman of India, the Diana monkey (Fig. 130), and the
comical-looking Nasalis (Fig. 131). These represent a further step
towards the final climax of the primate group.
[Illustration: FIG. 129.--Squirrel Monkey (_Chrysothrix sciurca_).]
[Illustration: FIG. 130.--The Diana Monkey (_Cercopithecus Diana_).]
[Illustration: FIG. 131.--The Proboscis Monkey (_Nasalis larvatus_).]
[Illustration: FIG. 132.--Gibbon (_Hylobates leuciscus_).]
[Illustration: FIG. 133.--Orang-Utan.]
[Illustration: FIG. 134.--Young Chimpanzee.]
[Illustration: FIG. 135.--The Gorilla.]
A special class has to be made for the four genera of Old-World apes
illustrated in Figs. 132 to 136. These are the Gorilla and Chimpanzee,
which are African in distribution, and the Gibbon and Orang, which are
Asiatic. They are termed the Anthropoid or man-like apes, and there
can be no question that they are the nearest living relatives of the
human species. This is seen in their general build, which is man-like
in a high degree; by many similarities, even in the minutest details,
in their skeleton and muscular system; and by the fact that their
brain, while still greatly inferior to that of man, is by as much
superior to that of any other animal. The voice is frequently well
modulated, and the expression of the emotions, whether by it or by the
countenance, is very man-like. The position of the group was summed
up by Huxley, after a most thorough investigation of their anatomy,
in these words: "Thus, whatever system of organs be studied, the
comparison of their modification 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." An interesting physiological proof
of the close relationship between the anthropoids and man has more
lately been discovered. It is found that the blood serum of any animal
destroys the blood corpuscles of any other when these are mixed with
it, except those of closely related species. Now the human blood serum
is destructive of the corpuscles of all the lower animals, so far as is
known, except those of the anthropoids.
[Illustration: FIG. 136.--Skeletons (left to right) of Gibbon,
Orang-Utan, Chimpanzee, Gorilla, and Man.
From Huxley's _Man's Place in Nature_.]
As regards the inter-relationships of the four species, it is
certain that the Gibbon is the lowest, and the nearest to the common
ancestor of the other three and of man. It has indeed the man-like
characteristic of walking in the erect position; but it has thirteen or
fourteen pairs of ribs, as against the normal twelve in man; it has
long arms, like the lower Old-World apes, and large canine teeth. It
is further the smallest of the group, and in habits the most like the
lower monkeys.
The Gorilla and Chimpanzee are closely related. The Gorilla is not
only the largest ape of the four, but in shape and build the most
man-like, which is accounted for by the fact that it is less strictly
arboreal than the others, and confines itself largely to the ground.
Its skull is superficially much less human in appearance than that of
the Chimpanzee, due to the strongly developed crests, which serve as
attachments for the powerful muscles of the lower jaw. The teeth of the
Chimpanzee are more uniform in size, and the skull smoother. There is a
marked difference in temperament between the two species, the Gorilla
being fierce and gloomy and quite untamable, while the Chimpanzee is
of a pleasant and lively disposition, and can, as is well known, be
trained to wear clothes, eat with a fork and knife, etc.
The Orang-Utan is found inhabiting forest ground in Borneo and Sumatra,
and living largely in trees, in which it builds nests as temporary
sleeping-places. It is a clumsy-looking animal, supporting itself on
the knuckles of its hands when travelling along the ground, and moving
but slowly. It has twelve pairs of ribs, the same number as in man, and
one fewer than in the Gorilla and Chimpanzee.
Practically all the important anatomical distinctions between man
and the anthropoids are reducible to two causes: the change from the
arboreal existence to a life on the ground and in the open country, and
the great development of the intelligence. When the change in the mode
of life occurred, it is obvious that an erect carriage would possess
an advantage over the stooping gait of the ape, in which it is neither
definitely a biped nor a quadruped. The erect position necessitated
a better-developed heel, stronger calf and hip muscles, and a more
parallel position and stronger development of the great toe. It also
brought about a shortening of the fore-arms and a widening of the
pelvis. Much has been made of the difference in the foot, between the
condition of a grasping organ, with an opposable great toe, and that
seen in man. But the change is just what we should devise in order to
make the foot stronger for propelling the body on the ground. Moreover,
the difference is more obvious than fundamental, and it is well known
that in armless persons, who develop the possibilities of their feet,
the latter members can still be turned into wonderfully efficient
'hands.'
[Illustration: FIG. 137.--Brains of (_F_) Cercopithecus (Eastern
Monkey); (_H_) Australian Bushman; (_L_) Chimpanzee; (_M_) European.]
In brain development the anthropoids are, as already mentioned,
greatly inferior to man; in the Gorilla, the largest-brained type,
the cranial capacity never, so far as is known, exceeds 600 cubic
centimetres, whereas the average in man is about 1500, and the smallest
known about 930. Apart from the difference in size, however, there is
a surprisingly close similarity between the anthropoid and the human
brains, which may be followed even in the particular arrangement of
the fissures. That the gap between the two types in respect of the
character in question is by no means extraordinarily wide may be seen
from Fig. 137, in which a series of brains are depicted. The size of
the hemispheres and the wrinkling of their surface are the characters
from which we judge the brain development, and it is obvious that in
these respects the step from the lower monkeys to the Chimpanzee is
greater than that between the Chimpanzee and the lowest human type. In
the teeth also, as is shown on Fig. 138, there is a gradual change from
the lemur to the human type.
[Illustration: FIG. 138.
_A_, Lower jaw of Pelycodus, a primitive extinct lemur, with eleven
teeth on either side; _B_, Lower jaw of red howling monkey (a Western
ape), with nine teeth on either side; _C_, Lower jaw of chimpanzee,
with eight teeth on either side; _D_, Lower jaw of man.]
[Illustration: FIG. 139.--The Pithecanthropus skull from the side and
from above.]
[Illustration:
FIG. 140.--The Pithecanthropus femur, from behind. The bone shows an
exostosis, evidently caused by an injury.]
Thus there can be no reasonable doubt that man has evolved from an
ancestor which, if it existed to-day, we should without hesitation
class as an anthropoid ape. Could any doubt have remained, it would
have been set aside by the discovery, in 1891, of a being occupying a
position about midway between the highest apes and the most primitive
known man. This is the Pithecanthropus, whose remains were discovered
in Java in a volcanic deposit of somewhat doubtful age, but probably
belonging to an era when a primitive type of man was already in
existence. The remains were indeed somewhat scanty, consisting of the
roof of the skull, a thigh bone, and a fragment of the lower jaw, the
former two of which are illustrated in Figs. 139 and 140. From these
fragments of the skeleton numerous deductions have been drawn, of
greater or less probability. It may be said with practical certainty,
however, that this ape-man was of the size of a smallish man, and that
he was accustomed to walk and stand in the characteristically human
erect attitude. The cranial capacity has been calculated at from 850
to 1000 cubic centimetres, or considerably greater than the highest
existing apes, and about equal to that of the lowest known human
specimens. His statue, as his discoverer conceived him, is illustrated
in Fig. 141.
[Illustration:
FIG. 141.--Imaginative statue of _Pithecanthropus erectus_.]
A restoration of the skull is shown in Fig. 142, and it is apparent
that in respect of the shape of the roof, at least, the Pithecanthropus
stands just about midway between the Chimpanzee and the most primitive
living man. The gradual approach to the human type, as we move upwards
in the primate scale, is very striking. The Pithecanthropus is by
some regarded as the result of an abortive attempt at 'man making,'
by others as a true transition form. We cannot in any case be very
far from the truth if we hang up his picture among the portraits of
our ancestors, for the transitional form would necessarily be closely
similar to him in its main features.
The next ancestor of whom we have any knowledge is definitely a human
being. This is the primitive man who inhabited Europe in earlier
Diluvial times, particularly in the interval between the first and the
second great ice ages. To him, from the place of his first discovery,
the name of the Neandertal man has been applied, and he is classed
by scientists as belonging to a different species from modern man,
the latter being named _Homo sapiens_, while he is given the less
flattering name of _Homo primigenius_. He was characterised, as may
readily be seen from the skull illustrated in Fig. 143, by a very
low and receding forehead, with heavy ridges of bone over the eyes.
In shape of head he stands midway between the Javan ape-man and the
Australian native, the lowest type existing at the present day. Further
ape-like peculiarities are the prominence of the lower part of the
face, the very large and massive lower jaw, and the receding chin,
shown in Fig. 144. From the skulls which have been found it is possible
to form a good idea of the man's appearance, which idea has been
expressed by a German sculptor in the bust illustrated in Fig. 145.
One may be permitted to hazard a guess at the cause of the process
"running to brain," which is the main feature of the last phases of
man's Evolution. The most probable theory seems to be that man came
into existence owing to the disappearance of forest over an area
inhabited by some high anthropoid ape. Ill-adapted as this ape would
certainly be for a life on the plains, it was saved from extinction
only by its high intelligence. And as cunning and reason would now,
in the new environment, be the most important assets, the process
of natural selection made for progress chiefly in respect of these
characters.
The faculty of articulate speech, which we must regard as an accidental
result of the great brain development, has given the human species that
great advantage which it possesses over all other animals of being able
to accumulate knowledge and experience from generation to generation.
It is this mass of experience, which is not inherent in man's nature,
but has to be impressed afresh on each successive generation, which
accounts for man's unique position in the animal world. But it is no
part of the scheme of this book to deal with the evolution of language
or invention or culture, and we must conclude.
Mankind are divisible into many types and races, some of which, like
the Australian aborigines and the Veddas of Ceylon, are relatively
primitive, others like the Germanic races being undoubtedly high in
the series. None of the differences are sufficient, however, to make
it necessary to regard mankind except as members of a single species.
The lower races have from time to time disappeared before the higher,
and the process continues at the present time. However much we
may regret it, this process has undoubtedly been a great factor in the
progress of the species as a whole.
[Illustration: FIG. 142.
Skulls of
Lemur.
Chimpanzee.
Australian Bushman.
Skulls of
Howling monkey (Mycetes).
Pithecanthropus (restored).
European man.]
[Illustration: FIG. 143.--Skull of Primitive Man, from Le Moustier.]
[Illustration: FIG. 144.--The Heidelberg lower jaw (_Homo
primigenius_).]
[Illustration: FIG. 145.--Bust of _Homo primigenius_, by Hyatt Meyer.]
[Illustration: FIG. 146.--Australian Bushman.]
Within the cultivated races, however, man has practically ceased to
evolve, at least in so far as concerns the main lines on which his
Evolution has thus far proceeded. For in creating the artificial
conditions of civilisation, he refuses any longer to be governed by
the stern law of nature, which decides that the fit shall live and
multiply, and the unfit surely perish. There is in fact evidence that
conditions of civilisation are making for retrogression rather than
for progress, a state of affairs that is worthy of the most serious
consideration. The only rational and scientific remedy that has been
offered for this state of affairs is the institution of some moderate
system of artificially guiding man's further Evolution.
PRINTED IN GREAT BRITAIN.
* * * * *
Transcriber's Notes:
Italic text is denoted by _underscores_.
Minor punctuation and printer errors repaired.
Every effort has been made to replicate this text as faithfully
as possible, including obsolete and variant spellings and other
inconsistencies.