Tllfc ' DAILY EVENING TFJliiriL PIIILADELPniA, FRIDAY, MARCH 1, 18G7.
c
THE AMERICAN MONKEY
Ills Relations to Humanity.
Frof. Agassiz's Great Lecture
on, the Monkeys and the
Original Inhabitants of
South ' America.
The Monkeys or the Amazon and
those of Africa.
Natural History of the Beast,
How He Eats, Sleeps, Acts,
Breeds, and Grows.
The Theories of Ihmvin, Humboldt,
( uvlcr, and Others Examined.
MI no of lfceallty uml
Trutli 1x)onoI.
Btc, Ktc, Etc., Etc., Etc., Etc.
The large hall of Cooper Institute, New York,
was crowded last Tuesday evening -with a
highly intelligent and respectable audience of
ladies and gentlemen, on the occasion of Pro
fessor Louis Agassiz's last lecture under the
auspices of the "Association for the Advance
ment of Science and Art," having successively
onfolded in a popular form the treasures of
knowledge which he had acquired of the Ama
zon river and the region over which it tra
verses, obtained by his recent extended survey
of that portion of the American continent, so
far as refers to the configuration of that im
mense water basin or inland ocean, its glacial
traces, geological structure, land and aquatic
animals, and the wealth and variety of
its rich tropical vegetation. His lec
ture last evening had reference to tha
monkeys of South America and to its native
inhabitants, so far as they differ in habits, ap
pearance, and ethnologica) conformation from
the people ot other portions of the American
continent. On the subject of the monkeys of
Brazil and the region of the Amazon, the ob
servations of Professor Agassiz were faithful to
nature, andlso pointed by an advanced scienti
fic knowledge as to be entertaining and instruc
tive and highly interesting. At a little before
8 o'clock the lecturer -was introduced by Dr.
Criscom, and proceeded to discuss the subject
ol his discourse, "The Monkeys and the Native
Inhabitants of South America," as follows:
THE RELATIONS BETWEEN MONKEYS AND MANKIND.
Ladies and Gentlemen: In an unguarded
moment I proposed for this evening's lecture
the subject which has been announced upon
the tickets. If I had considered the matter
more maturely, I would probably have abstained
lrom bringing into such public notice a subject
bo lull of difficulties, respecting which, after all,
so little is known, and with reference to which
there are such extreme views entertained by
the most competent investigators. As it is, I
have nothing left but candidly to express my
convictions without reticence, and, it I can,
without prepossession. Ot course you do not
xpectthat 1 shall present to you anecdotes
concerning the monkeys which I have seen
playing among the trees in the valley of the
Amazon, nor contrast with them the habits of
the native inhabitants; but that I shall take a
broader view of the subject, and discuss before
you the relations which exist betweeu tha mon
keys and mankind. This subject lor the last
ten years has engaged the direct attention of
all naturalists, aud w ith retereuce to which all
the investigations made wilhm the last ton
years have been more or lessdirectly connected;
lor nowadays, when a naturalist studies the
anatomy of an auiiual, it is with reference to
the possible explanation of the manner in whic h
that complicated structure was brought iuto
existence. If a naturalist nowadays investi
gates the embriology ol an animal, that is, it
transformations, its successive changes it is
- 'With a View of BRp.ertninin- Unr th,.t i i. :
, , " u . l ia vv w uiuil
regulates those changes is stamped upon it as a
Jiving being.
the recent inquiries or science.
When naturalists nowadays investigate the
peographiual distributions of animals upon the
surlace of our earth, it is with a view of ascer
taining, if it can possibly be done, in what way
the diversity which prevails all over the globe
has been produced, what is the primitive origin
of this great diversity. When geologists inves
tigate the fossils, the remains ot which are
buried in the strata of our earth; when thev
trace the order in which they have followed one
another in the course of time.it is at present
with a view of ascertaining how this succession
has been induced, which were the first, which
Aave lollowed, and in what relation they stand
to one another. And wheu men investigate the
differences which exiHt among their fellow-men'
it is with a view of ascertaining whether men
originated from one primary cause, or whether
there is a multiple origin to humanity. You
ee whenever naturalists nowadays approach
their subject, it is everywhere with one view
to ascertain.if itcan be done, in what waythiii"s
originated and what is the primary cause of the
differences which we observe among them And
the subject is just opening. We have hardly
any result to present. On the contrary We
have extreme views clashing with one another
an much so as the views which divide men con
cerning matters of their salvation, which inte
rest men with reference to their social oieani
zation. For we have schools in natural history
as there have been bchools in philosophy. We
have, as it were, sects, aa we have denomina
tions among Christians, and no one has a right
to present his view ot the subject as the only
correct one. Mis obligation is to present his
views and to discuss his arguments tu the hope
of pressing his views, if he is deeply convinced
of their accuracy.upon his hearer, but not with
the pretension that he has found the final solu
tion of the problem. There is a great change
in that respect, A great change has come upon
men in that respect. It is no longer possible
for any man, or lor any set of men, to assume
that the truth is with them exclusively. Men
have learned that there is only one common
foundation for their beliefs, however much
they will diner from one another In their reli
gious practiocs. Men have learned that there is
only one source for their knnai, n.w.i. ,
nature, however much they may differ in their
interpretation of nature's facts. And it is
with that consciousness that I will present this
evening my view upon the subject of the rela
tion which exists between man and monkev
urging those views which are my convictions!
but urging them with the consciousness that
mere are umci nem euiaruuned by others.
tnateincum wuu v.-r reuura, ana therefore I
want to luake a few statements concerning a'c-
cni.ations which have been made against me In
scientific an well an other journals. It ha ben
elated that in my public lectures I make loose
statements, which are not accurate in matters
ol fact; that I allow myself to be carried away
by the tmpluse of the moment; and that my
statements lacked that preclsiou which enti
tles to respect and confidence. And examples
of such loose statements are quoted. Now. I
will, that you may know within what limit
my statements are considerate, Just answer
a few of these statements. In some of
the lectures I have delivered I have stated
that vertebrates ' bave lour limbs, and
it is argued that everybody who is familiar with
the last records of our science knows that
whales and that porpoises, etc., have only two.
limbs. This I know is the statement of the text
book, but the text-books are only compilations,
seeond hand, of our knowledge; and if these
critics had looked at the orimnal information
upon this matter if they had consulted the work
of Itapp upon tin anatomy of these animals, or
the work on tonsil bones by Cuvier, or the mot
extensive woiks of natural history, they would
have known that rudimental exterior limbs
exist in all these animals, and that they only
aie concealed by the skin. And I have dissected
porpoises enouch, and 1 have lately had an op
portunity myself of dissecting other animals on
the Amazon, so thnt I know from personal ob
servation that these Investigations ot the anato
mists I have quoted are correct when thoy say
thHt, beside the fully developed pair of limb's
which these mdiu als have on the side of the
chest, they have a second rudimentary pair con
cealed under the skin, which is imperfectly de
veloped. Therefore I reiterate my statement
that it Is a natural tendency in all verUlraies to
develop lour limbs, and that here and there unl
two are developed, and in some the second pair
luutcanu iiihiit me sum. rue otners nave
been ascertained to nossea.1 n nnir nf rn.lln. ,i
limb under the skin. So much for that one
statement. (Applause.)
CONTROVERTED POINTS.
The second is that I affirmed that fluVies huve
lived (and along list of other errors Is enume
rated), that lishes had existed from the besrin-
ning ot creation as early as the other nnlnmls.
while in reality thev existed only from the time
of the diluvian period. Now how is it with
this? it, m the oldest state, the remains pre
served were perfect, it might be easy to dis
tinguish a Crustacea, a crab, or a lobster from a
flsh. But in these oldest beds of remains which
we have, and which have been interpreted by
some as flsh, and by others as Crustacea, they
are oniy irgmeniary spines, sucn as we nave in
the fins ot some fishes for instance in the com
mon dogfish (Illustrating on the chart), the
dorsal tin has in its anterior parts a small
bony fin, or spine, which projects in this
way (illustrating. On the other hand.
the horse-shoe crab has upon the sides
of the second sucath a series of spines
which are somewhat alike in appearance to
these spines. (Illustrating.) Now. snines nf
thiB kind, resembling fins, are numerous in the
oldest beds in which fossil remains have been
found, and the question is whelher they are the
remains of Crustacea or the remains of fishes.
Some naturalists have affirmed that they are
the remains of Crustacea. I have affirmed that
they are the remains of fishes. And I have
ba.-ed my assertions upon this, the structure of
the spines of the Crustacea when examined mi
croscopically as to the characters of the sub
stances which forms the shield of the Crustacea.
The spines ot fishes have the characteristic struc
ture microscopically of bones, which is very
easily distinguished from every other structure.
Now those spiDes of those oldest deposits have
the characteristic structure ot bones, therefore
i say again mat tnese spines arc the spines of
fishes, and that I am not wrong when 1 say that
fishes have existed as early as any other kind of
animals. (Applause.) But this is no place for a
controversy, and I will now turn to the subject
ot this evening's lecture, and consider with you
the question of the relation which exists be
tween monkeys and man. That question is a
recent question.
THE QUESTION AT ISSUE A RECENT ONE.
Aucicnt naturalists did not think of com
paring men and monkeys any more, specifi
cally, than they compared men with, other
animals. The works ot Aristotle, in which we
have the earliest comparisons of this kind, two
thousand years ago. discuss Wie structure of
man as compared with animals, but he does
not find a special resemblance between mon
keys and man anv more than between man and
the other vertebrates the other warm-blooded
vertebrates; and the reason why is obvious. In
those days the only monseys Known were
three the pythecus, as Aristotle calls him; the
common monkey of Northern Atrica, which
was treauentlv. no doubt, brought to Greece.
as nowadays it is frequently brought to the
southern parts of Europe; the other was the
guenons, or tue ren mousey oi Hortu Airica,
which is quite common on the coast of
Barbary, and which is a long-tailed monkey '
of reddish color, with pointed euont, some
what like the common monkeys we
obtain from South America, but ditlereut from
them in many ret-pects in the peculiarities of its
lace, of its teeth, aud the like. Then the third
kind of monkeys know n to the ancients was the
baboon, ot which representations are to be seen
in the ancient Egyptian monuments. Now,
neither ot these monkeys has anything particu
larly human. The baboon has a head not unlike
that of a bulldog, and was called by the ancients
canocephalus, or d'jg-head, on account of that
peculiar constitution of its head. But alter the
passage to the East Indies around the Uape ot
(iood Hope had been discovered, naturalists be
came acquainted with several kinds of monkeys
lroin the East Imiies and from the west coast of
Atrica, which extend far above those known to
the ancients: aud anions: them none are more
striking than the ourang-oulansr ot Borneo,
Java, and Sumatra, and the chimpanzee of
Senegal and the cast coastof Guinea. Those two
monkeys excited the curiosity of auutouiisls. and
called forth at once comparisons with man, in
consequence ot the higher torm or the head
and the peculiar development of the face of
these apes. And from that time comparisons
betweeu monkeys aud man have been intro
duced in all treatises on natural history. All ot
these comparisons have always had for their
oblects to establish the differences which exist
between one as compared with the other, lie
cently, a third kind of monkey, closely allied at
the preceding, has been found in tho lagoons
and on tho more southern parts of West Atrica,
and that species has been described under the
name ot gorilla.
THE GORILLA KNOWN TO THE ANCIENTS.
It is now acert;ined that that auimal was
already known to tho Greeks, though very im
perfectly, for an allusion is iouna in their lite
rature to a kind of small, hairy men observed
on tho west coast ot Africa, which could not
speak and which were very savage and untama-
i.i . . i .k .. . 1. nvila la 1- rw.
Ul I . Ami UOW WJnv. luc gwxu.o .3 .uwnii 11 v.au-
notbe doubted tnat the.animal mentioned was
this kind ol monkey. Now the question is what
are the structural relations which exist between
these monkeys and the other monkeys, and all
monkeys taken together and mankind.
DISTRIBUTION OF THE MONKEY TRIBE.
Before I proceed to compare them more
closely, let me sav a few general words concern
ing their distribution. All monkeys known aro
to be found within the tropics. It is only on
the border of the tropics, in the parts adjoining
the warm temperate zone, in the Old World, that
on the southern extremity ol Spain, on the rocks
f (iibraltHr, a lew monkeys havebeen observed,
and in the outhei ninost parts of Japan. Other
wise the homo ot the monkeys is within the
tropica, with the exception ot Australia, in
which none exist ttt all. But monkeys are not
the same m different parts of the world, and
there is a wide dulerenee among them. In the
first place, us a natural group, distinct among
the oilier mammalia, monkeys are charac
terized by an aiiutomlc.al fact which is very
striking. They have all fourhanis, while other
animals have four leet, and man hastwolfeet and
two hands: aud the difference which characte
rizes a hand and a toot is very obvious. A limb
terminated with Pngers which are all on due
level, aud which all bend in the same direction,
is a loot. A limb which has a number of fin
gers bending in the same way, while oue tinner
may be oppose to the other, and successively
e brought into contact with each of the olher
(inters, is a hand. The thumb, as a part of tho
hand, is flexible in another direction from the
lingers, and the thumb may be brought into
Juxtaposition successively with each ot the
fingers, while this is utterly impossible with
the toes ot the foot. Ihry all bend In the same
direction the large toe as well as the othcr
and the large toe cannot be brought into posi
tion successively with the other toes. Now,
then, all animals which bave teet at the ex
tremity of their four limbR are quadrupeds, and
all auimals which have lour hands and no leet
are monkeys.
MONKEY8 HAVE HANDS, BUT NO FEET.
And all monkeys have hand at the end of
their hind limbs as well as their fore limbs,
while man has a pair of feet and a pair of hands.
lhis is, perhaps, the most promineut difference
which may be noticed among these animals,
and the characteristic feature of the great order
ol monkeys. I must, however, say that there
are some slight modifications in this respect
Bmong the monkeys, in as far as there are some
in which the thumb is so short that it ciihnot
be as regularly brought into juxtaposition with
the other fineers as in the hand of man, and
there are even monkeys in which the thumb is
merely rudimental, so that four fingers aro only
developed, and the thumb is almost entirely
wanting. Then, again, what constitutes a finger
is the position of the nail upon the termination,
l'he lat joint of the finger in a perfect hand, the
last joint of every finger has a flat nail covering
only the upper part ot the joint of the
finger, and not extending forward and not
bending over the last Joint. Now, this is the
case with all the nails of our hand, and is the
case also with the nails of our foot, but not with
those of the animals, though we find there an
imperfect hand, perhaps where the thumb or
one or two or thrco fingers may have a perfect
nail, and the others may have curved nails
bending over the termination of the finger. This
is the ease often among some of the monkeys.
We have olten such monkeys in which the
thumb alone and the first finger bave a really flat
nail, the other Augers having arched claws bend
ing over the termluation of the finger. Now
again, of the monkeys, we have a great variety
as to size. Some of them are not larger than
squirrels not larger often than our small
striped squirrels while others approach in
stature, oitcn. mas; and all possible interme
diate dimensions exist between them. Thus
monkeys are scattered over Atrica aud Central
and Southern Asia, but in each ot these different
parts of the world they present different and
special characteristics. The monkeys of tho
Old World; that is, those inhablting-the tropical
portions of Africa and of Asia, are all remark
able for the great height of the forehead
for the creat angle of the face which they pre
sent. And naturalists have been in the habit of
measuring what is called the facial angle, which
is the line passing from the forehead and the
upper jaw meeting with another line passing
along the base of the skull, In man in intel
lectual man that angle is known as the right
aDgle; and the ancients understood that so well
that in their statues, whenfcthey wanted to ex
hibit the intellectuality of man more promi
nently than any other of the features of hu
manify.they exageerated the incline of that line,
and to their Jupiter, who was the great repre
sentation of creative power, they gave a very
great prominence to the forehead, which over
stepped the right angles, so that the forehead is
made very prominent over tho face. So well
was that understood as the characteristic fea
ture ot the higher organizations of the verte
brate type. Now these monkeys ot the Old
World approach in that respect more to man
than any otner of the monkeys, and the young
ourang-oatang in that respect approaches far
nearer the characteristics of young humanity
than do the adult monkeys approach the char
acteristics ot adult man. It is a curious fact
that in their early age, when the more charac
teristic features are not yet strongly developed
with the riaidity that marks the features ot the
adult, animals that aie more closely related to
one another resemble one another more closely
when young than in the more adult state. And
we find in this respect amoug the higher mon
keys a greater resemblance between the young
monkeys aud the young children than between
the adults themselves.
THE NOSE OF THE OLD WORLD MONKEYS.
Another feature of the monkeys of the Old
World cons is is in the construction of the nose.
The nose is one oi the promiueut features of the
face all throuuh the higher type of the animals
of the Old World, and in man as well as in
moDkcyswe find a most characteristic differ
ence between the different representatives of
these two great groups a marked and striking
difference in the form of the nose. The white
man has a promiuent, aquiline nose, aud in the
shape of the nostrils, which are opened from
forwards and backwards, and not sideways, so
the point of the noso is the most prominent
portion of the lace. Other racos of men have,
on the contrary, a flattened nose, ancittheir nos
trils open in sideways, so that the nostrils open
fim the side outwards. Some naturalists
have observed in the monkeys ot the Old
World that they have narrow nostrils, aud thai
their nostrils open inwards, as in white meu,
aud from forwards and backwards, aud that that
portion which divides the nostrils is very par
row. Then, again, it ib observed that among
the monkeys ot the Old World we fin J a laree
number of them destitute of tails. Neither the
ourung-oiminer, nor toe gorilla, nor chimpanzee
has any caudal appendage. Iu the islands of
the coast and the lorests of Malacca there are
laree tribes of monkeys with exceediocly long
arms, but all destitute of tails. Among the
lame number of monkeys that inhabit and roam
over the continent of Africa we find tho baboon,
a ehort-talled species. It is only among the
more slender kinds of monkeys inhabiting the
Old World that we find those monkeys that
have as Ions tails as the monkeys of Africa
generally have. Then, again, among those
monkeys that we find in the Old World we find
monkeys in the New World not ouly generally
smaller, but having a prolonged snout; but
their facial angle is lonirer thau the facial angle
of the moLkeys of the Old World. And what is
a most curious tact is that their nostrils are
broad, and that portion between the nostrils
remarkably broad, so lhat the nostrils opeu iu
H mauner sideways. And among these agaiu
we find a large number of monkeys which have
remarkably long tails, and some of them even
with tails which terminate with a naked surface
miuerneam, which they cau u?o as au addi
tional limb; and these monkeys have so much
dexterity in the use ot the tail that they can
seize the smallest objects with it with as creat
precision as with their hands. AU moukeys
wi.n such prehensile tails are peculiar to fouth
AiDlraa.u2 uot one species of monkey in the
Uld World has that peculiarity. Even those
moukeys that have prehensile tails have them
covered all over with hair. There is a certain
number ot moukeys m South America which
have tomewhat long tails, but there is not oue
aU .hol cot'uent of America entirely
i'iu i cau?ul aPPt'udape. So that you
will see that we lmve two well-marked groups
whhI habiting the Old and New
f' thp!r distinguished features consisting
m,i!i?Ji CK1,a.r ,i0m of th"ir cUstiu-
tri Wt CU tlttVe. Rls0 b"eciu niarm of dif
wheh ini?iT 19 V"8 Ure squirrel monkey,
smiti ',' .inhablts y be irop.cal portions of
and thennrr,he;an,lt,Je eyof the Amazon,
d ilo i . Portions ot Brazil, and which
.nftJi1 S uer monkeys in having Its
teeth MZhl. T11?1' I,ron- "illi'K
Lr,Vfi,hLJi-ke. .th0 moles, the other
tectn, Bomewhat like tho moles the oth
having small imperfect hands n ore S-o .
han the hands ot other monkeys and vet
h?KSr.i!li"h c.earl,7nei u'nmt tall
paw
so
show that thev " "u uuuiisiaxuu.y
DENTAL PECULIARITIES
Another difference that I have not vet men
Honed as between, tho monkeys f th rf
tho dentition. Man has five grinders above and
below, and on the right and let maklnff twenty
Old" World Buftr6 lU the monkeys'of tlie
rrrrSrS
macacas, wbuAi Inhabit Madagascar, and are
exclusively found in numbers on that island.
thoueh there is a class allied to the macaoas
found on the opposite shore of Alrica. What
distinauishes these monkeys from all other
monkeys is tne lorm or shape ot their neau,
which Is protruded, like that of the
fox, and occasionally called, on that ac
count, the fox monkey. Tbey havo a pointed
snout, and are more like that animal than
monkeys generally are. Their fingers, too, are
more numerous, and are provided with claws,
lather than the flat nails of other monkeys, so
that we have a fourth group of monkeys, which
are characterized by a peculiarity of their
structure, easily recognized and unmistakable
the macacas, which inhabit the island of
Madaeasrar and the opposite coast of Africa:
the monkeys which resemble the squirrel and
which inhabit tropical South America; ihe
monkeys with broad nostrils, which inhabit
bouth America generally within the tropics,
and the monkeys ot the Old World, which are
found in Africa and Asia and within the tropics;
but not lound in Madagascar or Australia. It
is a curious thing that they live in a tropical
region iu which the palm tree flourishes, and
which is the principnl abode of monkeys, as in
Africa that Australia should be destitute of
monkeys, while on the adjoining Islands mon
keys, not only of the common kind, but the
higher kind of monkeys, are found.
THE INFLUENCE OF CLIMATE.
This shows, in my estimation, one thing,
that all differences which exist among animals
cannot be ascribed to climatic intluences, or
that, at all events, that climate simply and of
iltelt does Dot produce animals which are aWn
to each other, for throughout Australia, wbien
exhibits all the peculiar climatic productions
of tho tropical and temperate zones, has
neither monkeys, nor carnivorous animals, nor
ruminants; neither deer nor elks, antelopes nor
elephants, nor rhinoceros, nor hippopotamus,
nor tapirs, nor any of the other large quad
rupeds which inhabit everywhere else tho
tropical regions of the earth; nor are therein
Australia auy of the ruminants no giraffes, no
camels, nor antelopes, nor any of the carnivo
rous tribes; no bears; no weasels, no loxcs,
nor docs, nor wolves; no cats, tigers, or lions;
none of those tribes, but the whole of the
continent is peopled by quadrupeds of a pecu
liar kind and altogether confined to itsetf.
There is the marsupial kind the kangaroo
family all remarkable for the peculiarity of
liaving, use our opossum, a pouch to carry its
young, the only genus found on this continent.
All these animals of the marsupial genus have
under the abdomen a poucu wnere their young,
born in an immature condition, are transferred.
and where they remain till they reach a greater
progress in development. That marsupial group
is a peculiar givuu oi qunurupcus kuowd. only
to Australia, and" in their various forms they
ape all the other families as common in other
parts ot the world. Some they call monkevs.
though not having any of the characteristics of
monkeys, and others they call carnivorous
animals, though they have none of the habits of
carnivorous animals, and others thev class
among the ruminants, though they are not
ruminants properly speaking. To treat noon
this bubieel would lead nie too far from the sub
ject or tne lecture, should l enter into a detailed
account oi these animals.
All I want to impress upon vou in this ton-
nection is tho fact that in every part of the
world there are peculiar tribes of animals, and
that these tribes do exhibit such close relations
to the climatic conditions, that we cannot with
any Kind ot satisfactory evidence ascribe these
peculiarities to other than the climatic intluences
under which they live. Among those monkeys
there arc innumerable varieties or species or
genera, as you may call them, for the name is
not oi very great importance nere. l want,
however, to make clear the fact what is the
nature of these differences. Among those
monkeys are tho ourang-outang, the gorilla,
and the chimpanzee, which have hands made
in the same manner, and teeth the same, and
in which the details of the structure present
the same relations, and which are, therefore,
considered as one group. The name under
which the higher monkeys are generally desig
nated are anthropophagi monkeys, and are
called man-monkevs.
We have those monkeys in which the snout is
very prominent and large, like a dog, the tail
short and the limbs stout, the body large and
strongly built; these are the baboons. But
again there are among them some kind of a dif
ferent species, differing in size and differing in
color, as well as differing in the length of the
hair over the Lead and neck, in the mane and
so forth. We have another group of long-tailed
monkeys of the Old World, remarkable for their
slender forms and great length ot their tails,
and the greater prominence of their snouts,
their teeth, and the like. But among them,
again, there are a number of different species,
occupying different portions ol the Old World,
ot Atrica aud Asia. And so it is with the mon
keys of the New World. In South America we
have some monkeys with prehensiie tails, but
in which the tail is covered with hair.
MEN ARE NOT DERIVED FROM A COMMON STOCK.
Now I hold that idea ol the community of
origin of man aud monkeys and other quad
rupeds is a fallacy, the foundation of which I
shall try to explain presently. But if it is an
error to consider man as derived from monkeys,
we must admit that men are not derived from
a common stock, because the differences which
exist among meu are at the same time quite as
striking as the differences which exist between
moukeys aud betweeu the lower animals. Let
me point out these differences. Let me first
say in what all men agree and in what all meu
diiler from moukeys. All men agree in having
four limbs, one pair of which terminates witii
feet and the other terminates with hands. All
men are endowed with the ability of standing
erect, and their constitution is such that the
erect position is not an acquirement resulting
from education, and is not the result of the
successive chain, but is one of the constituted
peculiarities of the humau frame. The whole
ot the backbone is so organized that man cau
carry with ease his heavy, broad head ouly in
a vertical position. He has not, as animals
have, a ligament with which he may support the
head iu a horizontal position with ease, but the
head must be balanced on the top of the vertical
column, in order that it may rest and be moved
with facility in every direction. Then man ha
limbs on the sides ot the chest so organized that
he cau move them iu every direction, aud touch
every part of his body with them; and that pair
of limbs terminates with the most perfect hand
known in nature, aud that hand is so constituted
as readily to carry out the mandate of the mind.
It is broupht into the service ot the intellect,
and is no longer an organ of locomotion, as is
the case in the monkey. All these peculiarities
are characteristic o all men, aud between
monkev and man there is no structural transi
tion. There is no gradation from the highest
monkey to the lowest race of man. All those
attempts at bringing man closer to the monkey
by the lower types of humanity overloofc these
fundamental conditions which make man, how
ever low and infirm, a man, and which separate
him from the monkey, however high as a nion
key he may stand. (Applause.)
DIFFERENCES IN THE HAIR OF MEN.
But while we recoprnize certain structural
attributes as particularly human, let us uot
overlook the great conditions which exist among
lWn both in stiucture and attainments. In the.
first place in color tho differences are obvious,
but they are comparatively ot slight importance.
Next iu hair there is a marked difference. The
tlowiug straight bair of the white race is very
different already from the stiff and wiry hair of
the Indian; and when we begin to compare
that hair with that of the Australian or with
that of the Malay or with that of the Feejean
Islander, or still more strikingly with that of
the negro, we find differences which are most
marked. The hair of the white race is cylindrical-
the hair of the negro is flat, it is woolly, it
is curly; and these peculiarities are not pecu
liarities brought about by climate lor white
men have existed in close proximity with
negroes ever since the two races have boou
known to exist side by side on earth, and the
white man has not assumed the woolly hair
of the negro, nor the negro assumed the
straight hair of the white race. (Laughter aud
applause.)
DIFFERENCES IN THE TEETH, NOSE, AND NOSTRILS.
Then there is a difference in the dentition,
and a yerJ marKed one. All the white race
have their teeth vertical, the Jaw short, nnd the
manner In which the teeth tltoncopon the other
is perpendicular; so that when we cloe trie
mouth we bring ;tho lower teeth acamst the
upper teeth in such luxtaposition that the two
sets staud vertically, one above the other. The
races of men which have that kind of dentition
are called straight jawed races; while there
aie other races among others, ail tiie inhabi
tants of the ISoMth Sea Islands and all the in
habitants of Africaand Houth Atlas which have
their trout teeth Inclined, so that.the upper teeth
and the lower teeth when brought against one
another form an Bngle, and the mouth is more
prominent; and all the races of men with pro
truding aws have also thicker and more promi
nent lips. They havo also the flat nose, which I
have already described, with broad partitions
between the nostrils, and the nostrils opening
sideways.
And these differences have been known among
them ever since men have been observed by
man. On the ancient monuments ot Egypt
there are figures of negroes, there are figures of
Egyptians, ihere are figures ol Jews, and there
are figures of white men, as characteristic in all
these particulars as we see them now; so that
for at least as long a time as these monuments
have bren In existence, these features of hu
manity have remained what they were then, and
have retained their peculiarities. Now, then,
the question is. How were these peculiarities
brought about? Are they innate (that is, are
they prlmordial)or are they the result of change?
If these conditions are the result of change, then
the differences which we observe among mou
keys, why should they not be the result
ol change aUo And if changes as great
can take place, why should not changes a
little greater occur? and. therefore, why
should not all the conditions which exist
among living beings be the result of succes
sive changes ? It is upon this line of argument
that the scientific article has been based which
is known as the transmutation doctrine, and
which has been discussed for centuries, but
which has been revived in a more recent form
and with more recent argument, by Darwin,
and which is now being actively agitated
among naturalists. Now, I propose to show
you on what fallacies this view rests, and I
will repeat my statement in another form. The
question is whether we are the lineal descend
ants of moukeys, or whether we are the chil
dren of a creative mind; whether we are the
result of a natural evolution, or whether we
are the expression of a specific act of creation
In establishing the difference, I do not mean to
charge those who entertain the idea of the
transformation with denying the intervention
of the creative power in the world. I
dd not charge them with denying the
interference of fiod in nature; but I
charge them with denying" His imme
diate and direct intervention in the produc
tion of these diflcrences. Whether they fire
right or wrong depends upon the interpretation
ot the facts which we have before us. It is now
to the examination of these facts I would call
your p.Uention, In the first place, I would say
that man is rated in the auimal kingdom in a
manner which makes it impossible to separate
the classes which relate to his existence from
those which relate to the animal kingdom.
When we examine the order of succession of
animals through all geological times, we find,
from beginning to end, a definite relation to
somethiLg higher. We find in the last geolo
gical epoch man has been Introduced; so that
in the order of succession ot the living races
which have at diflerent times peopled the sur
face of our globe, we see man announced from
the beginning; aud we can say as one of the
scientific results of the comparison of all these
races, that from the beginning man was meant
to be at the head of creation, and that upon the
plan on which the animals living on our earth
are constructed, there is no possibility of a
higher being than man himself; and this gene
ralization can be sustained by an examination
, of the structure of the brain alone.
Without entering into an extensive argument,
I will show you that such is the structure of the
highest systems of organs in the whole series of
animals; that from the fish to man there is one
gradual gradation; and that in the structure ot
man there is such an arrangement that shows
that he Is ths highest and best lorm of the series
which began with the fish. Suppose this to be
the brain of the fish (illustrating), we have here,
as in all brains, a front swelling, from which
arise nerves which go to the nostrils, a middle
swelling, from which arise the nerves which go
to the eyes, and a third swelling, from which,
arise the nerve which goes to the ear, and then
other nerves which go to the different parts,
about which I need not trouble you now.
These three swellings are so constituted that
the uppermost is the smallest, the middle occu
pies tue middle position, and the hindmost is
the largest. In reptiles we find that these
three swellings have about tho same dimen
sions that the front swelling begins to rise so
as to staud on a level with the middle swelling.
which itself is about as large as the hind
swelling, which is raised in dimensions from
me other.
DIKFFRENT THEORIES OF THE CREATIVE METHOD,
The transmutation doctrine assumes that ani
malsare derived from one another, and that
there Is a primitive cell formed from which all
animals may have been evolved. The doctrine
is that all vertebrates are derived from one
primitive vertebrate, that all articulates are
derived from one primitive articulate, that all
moiiusKS axe derived lrom one primitive mol
lusk, that all radiates are derived from one
primitive radiate, and that these four primitive
types are derived themselves from a primitive
cell, formed by the combination of those fortui
tous elements which are acting wherever litrht.
moisture, and matter are brought into contact
witn one another. This is a doctrine professed
by many eminent modern men of science, on
the ground that everything which exists is
strafed spontaneously by the formation of a
primitive ceil, unuer tne innuence of light
acting upon matir.
There has recently appeared a most striking
production on "the action of light upon matter
as originating living beings." which fairly ex
presses the views of that school. Darwin, and
other Englishmen of science, entertain the same
doctrine in a diflerent light. They assume that
the first impule was given by an intellectual
power, and that this impulse has resulted in the
unfolding in the evolution out of the first
perms created of all that has followed. The
doctrine which I support is that it is not only
the few that were started in the beginning by
the creative act, but the many, and that it was
not to one time only that creation has been
limited, but that creation has gone on through
all ages, and that under the direct influence of
creative acts an tne ainerences wnicn exut In
nature have been brought about. (Loud ap
plause.) These are generalizations. Now let us
see what the tacts are; whether tbey will sustain
the German transmutation doctrine, or whether
the English doctrine comes nearer to the truth.
And if neither be shown to be correct,
then I shall have proved my statement that we
are not lineal descendants of monkeys, but that
we are the chosen proJuctions of a Divine in
tellect, and that we are made in His resemblance.
But these are interpretations; lot us look at the
facts once more, and ascertain how closely tbev
approach to my view of the case. Nearly all
the radiates, mbllusks, and the lower forms of
life arc found in the oldest formations. The
first insects we find belong to the carboniferous
period, and we cannot find them beiore. Then
among vertebrates we have fishes from the be
ginning. Then we have reptiles from the car
boniferous period onward. We have birds from
the gurastic period, though that is some
what questionable. We have also all mammalia
from that date.
During the earliest periods of the earth's his
tory, the whole of its surface was covered with
water. There was no room for terrestrial ani
ruals, When land and vegetation began to be
extensive, we have the first indication of land
animals in the introduction of insects. And
here let me call your attention to another polut.
Is it because nature has undergone successive
changes that animals and plants have made
their appearance; and is it physical change
which has called tbem Into existence, living
beings, or have these- physical changes taken
place and been directed in such a manner
as to prepare a home on which living
beings cau be distributed? The question is
simply this has the physical world, iu all
lis changes, been productive of the oruanic
woild, or has there been an Intellectual power
mteriniending the whole In such a nvinner
that the physical conditions should b Drought
about by which the living beings should find
an appropriate home for their growth In
other word.', has man sprung up in earta be
cause our earth bad become what it was, or
has the earth been prepared for man that ho
might develop and uutoid his capacities in the
most appropriate manner upon its surface?
Now, it we look at the order ot succession in
vertebrates, we find an answer to this question.
We find, first, that fishes have existed as long as
the surlace of the earth was underthe conditions
during which all these aquatic animals could
exist. Then reptiles have been called into ex
istence just at the time when the earth hai
become extensive enouehor the land above the
sea had become extensive enough, to lorm an
appropriate abode lor these largo marsh reptiles
of the earliest period. We find afterwards the
introduction of birds at the time wbeiv the
atmosphere had been deprived of the gases which
had until this time rendered it impossible for
them to exist in it. The accumulation of coal
iutho beds of the carboniferous period freed
the air of all those elements which accumulated
in it In the earlier period, and with which, the
existence of warm-blooded, higher animals
Would be Impossible. There is a physical fact
wnicn precedes the introduction ot those living
animals which require a purer atmosphere.
Now the question is, again, has the freeing of
the atmosphere of that carbon been the cause
of the comiug In of birds and mammalia, or
bave the processes of nature been so directed
bya f uperviBing iutellect.that at a certain time
the atmosphere should be freed ol these impure
elements, so that higher forms of being might
be called into existence? And when we see
that there is such a gradation between all, and
when we find no Intermediate forms from! one
to another, it seems hardly possible that causes
and influences which are ever acting in the
same way should bave produced those diflerent
results. I wish I had lime to enter upon an
elaborate argument upon this point. I will
only sam up my evidence In a lew sentences..
The physical causes are the same now as they
were before, and chemical and physical agencies
act now as they acted in the beginning. We
bave the evidence of it in the identical
character of the rocks ot the oldest and moro
recent formations. We bave evident of it in
the chemical identity of the materials of which
the celestial bodies are made, of which a dis
tinguished man of science has recently given us
the most complete observations. The physical
world remains the same; the laws which govern
it remain the same; and from the beginning
until now, they have acted in the same way.
Are, then, the diflerent animals which have
existed at different times, and which differ in
the most varied manner, tho result of causes
which do not vary, which do not change, which
pet ever in the same manner? This is contrary
to out argument, d it is also contrary to any
evidence we have. . .
We cannot ascribe diversified results to uni
form causes; we cannot ascribe as cause to cer
tain ellects agencies the action of which is
known to us. Thoe who are acquainted with
the effects of light and magnetism aud heat
upon matter, and what are the possible combi
nations between chemical agents, know per
fectly well that these various combinations,
these various actions, are different from tho
actions which we now witness in the animal
kingdom. Therefore 1 a ay it is not logical to
ascribe the living beings to those causes, end
transcribe the diversity which exists nmong
living beings to causes which at one time
existed. I say that unitormlty of nature should
produce unilormity of action. I can conceive
only one possible cause for this diversity the
intervention of mind. We all know perfectly
well, in our own case, how the human mind
acts how free it is, how it can mani
fest itself, and abstain from manifesta
tion. We know perfectly well how in
this manifestation we can recognize the
stamp ol Him from whom it comes. We know
perfectly well that in the diflerent works of an
artist we can recognize his peculiar ways, his
peculiar mode of manifesting himself, the pecu
liar stamp ot his mind. So in the case of the
poet and the painter, and the sculptor and tha '
architect. Why should we not have something
of the same kind in nature? Our mind is truly
not a manifestation of matter; it is something
independent of it, to the extent to which we
know its freedom, and the extent to which we
cau maintain its independence from surround
ing influences. And to that extent and
in similar manner do I conceive the in
tervention of mind in the production of living
beings through all times, and a plan laid out
and carried out from beginning to end with
reference to that end. And that there
is that reference to the end as it is in man,
as seen in the relation which man bears to
the lowest lorm the fish that there is such a
reference to man is seen in tho gradation which
wo observe through all times lrom the begin
niug to the end. And that this cannot be the
result of simple influences of physical condi
tionsis further shown by the fact which is
constantly recurring of the transformations
reproduced every day through the whole ani
mal kingdom in the production of new indi
viduals. And here I come to the closing evi
dence I have to submit. There aie several hun
dred thousand different kinds of animals living
on this globe, of all types of the animal king
dom. Now every one of them has its line of
development, and each passes through a cer
tain number of changes. Every sparrow begins
with the epg.and goes through the changes which
are characteristic of sparrow lile until it is capa
ble of reproducing itself in eggs, which will go
through the eame changes. Every butterfly
arises from an egg, which produces a caterpil
lar, that caterpillar becomes a chrysalis, and
that in turn becomes a butterfly, and thus
changes until it is a perfect animal, capable of
proaucing another egg. So it is with every
living being. There are those which are low
and those which are high; there are those
which belong to the lowest type of their class
and those which belong to the highest; in fact,
the animal kingdom, as it Is now, is constantly
undereoing greater changes every year than
the whole animal kingdom has passed through
from the begiunine until now, and
yet we never see one those ani
mals swerve from the line appointed
for It, and change into something that is not
like itself. This is the great fact. Every living
being reproduces itself under conditions which
are the same now as tbey were in the beginning
of the world till now, and yet they do not
change. Why? Because by naturn they are
not changeable That is what we must infer,
and it those which live now are not changeable,
and do not pass from one into another, though
they represent all the changes which animals
cau pass through, is it logical to assume that
those of earlier ages have become other thau
what we see the animal to be now in conse
quence of changes, and that the laws of nature
have changed in such a mautier that that which
does not take place now should have taken
place in eur ier times? I say just as much as
the cycle which every animal passes through
in undergoing its development from the egg
lined in the rocks, are appointed forms which
h?oie?er.cJ,8ned. 'P.oi'aneouBly from the
-Vi u u i"ipij mo steps through
which it has pleased the'crealor to carry the
animal kingdom until it reached man, the being
which is lramed in His image, which is endowed
with a spirit akin to llimtb, meant Tof which
alono he is capable of understanding r nature
Were we not made in the image of the Crelmr
did we not possess a spark of thd
which is oar godlike ttrita?how cSuld
we understand nature f hoow could we sVnd in
such a lelation to the whole world that U uhlr
not be a sealed book? It K", 8bould
akin not only to the physical anJ in? W1 ar1
kingdom, but also to the Creator unlmal
we can read the world and nnM Jitbff
comesfromOod. (LoudapPlae T tL?
Akotukb Gift by Mb. Tim hod y. Mr. George
reabodyhas mndo Z . "eorga
dollar fn ti, v i fc " " inousaml
USfiKSi? "fto extending &