The Descent Of Man
Charles Darwin
1871
THE DESCENT OF MAN
by Charles Darwin
INTRODUCTION
INTRODUCTION.
THE NATURE of the following work will be best understood by a
brief account of how it came to be written. During many years I
collected notes on the origin or descent of man, without any intention
of publishing on the subject, but rather with the determination not to
publish, as I thought that I should thus only add to the prejudices
against my views. It seemed to me sufficient to indicate, in the first
edition of my Origin of Species, that by this work "light would be
thrown on the origin of man and his history"; and this implies that
man must be included with other organic beings in any general
conclusion respecting his manner of appearance on this earth. Now
the case wears a wholly different aspect. When a naturalist like
Carl Vogt ventures to say in his address as President of the
National Institution of Geneva (1869), "personne, en Europe au
moins, n'ose plus soutenir la creation independante et de toutes
pieces, des especes," it is manifest that at least a large number of
naturalists must admit that species are the modified descendants of
other species; and this especially holds good with the younger and
rising naturalists. The greater number accept the agency of natural
selection; though some urge, whether with justice the future must
decide, that I have greatly overrated its importance. Of the older and
honoured chiefs in natural science, many unfortunately are still
opposed to evolution in every form.
In consequence of the views now adopted by most naturalists, and
which will ultimately, as in every other case, be followed by others
who are not scientific, I have been led to put together my notes, so
as to see how far the general conclusions arrived at in my former
works were applicable to man. This seemed all the more desirable, as I
had never deliberately applied these views to a species taken
singly. When we confine our attention to any one form, we are deprived
of the weighty arguments derived from the nature of the affinities
which connect together whole groups of organisms- their geographical
distribution in past and present times, and their geological
succession. The homological structure, embryological development,
and rudimentary organs of a species remain to be considered, whether
it be man or any other animal, to which our attention may be directed;
but these great classes of facts afford, as it appears to me, ample
and conclusive evidence in favour of the principle of gradual
evolution. The strong support derived from the other arguments should,
however, always be kept before the mind.
The sole object of this work is to consider, firstly, whether man,
like every other species, is descended from some pre-existing form;
secondly, the manner of his development; and thirdly, the value of the
differences between the so-called races of man. As I shall confine
myself to these points, it will not be necessary to describe in detail
the differences between the several races- an enormous subject which
has been fully discussed in many valuable works. The high antiquity of
man has recently been demonstrated by the labours of a host of eminent
men, beginning with M. Boucher de Perthes; and this is the
indispensable basis for understanding his origin. I shall,
therefore, take this conclusion for granted, and may refer my
readers to the admirable treatises of Sir Charles Lyell, Sir John
Lubbock, and others. Nor shall I have occasion to do more than to
allude to the amount of difference between man and the
anthropomorphous apes; for Prof. Huxley, in the opinion of most
competent judges, has conclusively shewn that in every visible
character man differs less from the higher apes, than these do from
the lower members of the same order of primates.
This work contains hardly any original facts in regard to man; but
as the conclusions at which I arrived, after drawing up a rough draft,
appeared to me interesting, I thought that they might interest others.
It has often and confidently been asserted, that man's origin can
never be known: but ignorance more frequently begets confidence than
does knowledge: it is those who know little, and not those who know
much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be
solved by science. The conclusion that man is the co-descendant with
other species of some ancient, lower, and extinct form, is not in
any degree new. Lamarck long ago came to this conclusion, which has
lately been maintained by several eminent naturalists and
philosophers; for instance, by Wallace, Huxley, Lyell, Vogt,
Lubbock, Buchner, Rolle, &c.,* and especially by Haeckel. This last
naturalist, besides his great work, Generelle Morphologie (1866),
has recently (1868, with a second edit. in 1870), published his
Naturliche Schopfungsgeschichte, in which he fully discusses the
genealogy of man. If this work had appeared before my essay had been
written, I should probably never have completed it. Almost all the
conclusions at which I have arrived I find confirmed by this
naturalist, whose knowledge on many points is much fuller than mine.
Wherever I have added any fact or view from Prof. Haeckel's
writings, I give his authority in the text; other statements I leave
as they originally stood in my manuscript, occasionally giving in
the foot-notes references to his works, as a confirmation of the
more doubtful or interesting points.
* As the works of the first-named authors are so well known, I
need not give the titles; but as those of the latter are less well
known in England, I will give them:- Sechs Vorlesungen uberdie
Darwin'sche Theorie: zweite Auflage, 1868, von Dr. L. Buchner;
translated into French under the title Conferences sur la Theorie
Darwinienne, 1869. Der Mensch, im Lichte der Darwin'schen Lehre, 1865,
von Dr. F. Rolle. I will not attempt to give references to all the
authors who have taken the same side of the question. Thus G.
Canestrini has published (Annuario della Soc. dei Naturalisti, Modena,
1867, p. 81) a very curious paper on rudimentary characters, as
bearing on the origin of man. Another work has (1869) been published
by Dr. Francesco Barrago, bearing in Italian the title of "Man, made
in the image of God, was also made in the image of the ape."
During many years it has seemed to me highly probable that sexual
selection has played an important part in differentiating the races of
man; but in my Origin of Species I contented myself by merely alluding
to this belief. When I came to apply this view to man, I found it
indispensable to treat the whole subject in full detail.* Consequently
the second part of the present work, treating of sexual selection, has
extended to an inordinate length, compared with the first part; but
this could not be avoided.
* Prof. Haeckel was the only author who, at the time when this
work first appeared, had discussed the subject of sexual selection,
and had seen its full importance, since the publication of the Origin;
and this he did in a very able manner in his various works.
I had intended adding to the present volumes an essay on the
expression of the various emotions by man and the lower animals. My
attention was called to this subject many years ago by Sir Charles
Bell's admirable work. This illustrious anatomist maintains that man
is endowed with certain muscles solely for the sake of expressing
his emotions. As this view is obviously opposed to the belief that man
is descended from some other and lower form, it was necessary for me
to consider it. I likewise wished to ascertain how far the emotions
are expressed in the same manner by the different races of man. But
owing to the length of the present work, I have thought it better to
reserve my essay for separate publication.
PART ONE
DESCENT OR ORIGIN OF MAN
CHAPTER I.
THE EVIDENCE OF THE DESCENT OF MAN FROM SOME LOWER FORM.
HE WHO wishes to decide whether man is the modified descendant of
some pre-existing form, would probably first enquire whether man
varies, however slightly, in bodily structure and in mental faculties;
and if so, whether the variations are transmitted to his offspring
in accordance with the laws which prevail with the lower animals.
Again, are the variations the result, as far as our ignorance
permits us to judge, of the same general causes, and are they governed
by the same general laws, as in the case of other organisms; for
instance, by correlation, the inherited effects of use and disuse,
&c.? Is man subject to similar malconformations, the result of
arrested development, of reduplication of parts, &c., and does he
display in any of his anomalies reversion to some former and ancient
type of structure? It might also naturally be enquired whether man,
like so many other animals, has given rise to varieties and sub-races,
differing but slightly from each other, or to races differing so
much that they must be classed as doubtful species? How are such races
distributed over the world; and how, when crossed, do they react on
each other in the first and succeeding generations? And so with many
other points.
The enquirer would next come to the important point, whether man
tends to increase at so rapid a rate, as to lead to occasional
severe struggles for existence; and consequently to beneficial
variations, whether in body or mind, being preserved, and injurious
ones eliminated. Do the races or species of men, whichever term may be
applied, encroach on and replace one another, so that some finally
become extinct? We shall see that all these questions, as indeed is
obvious in respect to most of them, must be answered in the
affirmative, in the same manner as with the lower animals. But the
several considerations just referred to may be conveniently deferred
for a time: and we will first see how far the bodily structure of
man shows traces, more or less plain, of his descent from some lower
form. In succeeding chapters the mental powers of man, in comparison
with those of the lower animals, will be considered.
The Bodily Structure of Man. It is notorious that man is constructed
on the same general type or model as other mammals. All the bones in
his skeleton can be compared with corresponding bones in a monkey,
bat, or seal. So it is with his muscles, nerves, blood-vessels and
internal viscera. The brain, the most important of all the organs,
follows the same law, as shewn by Huxley and other anatomists.
Bischoff,* who is a hostile witness, admits that every chief fissure
and fold in the brain of man has its analogy in that of the orang; but
he adds that at no period of development do their brains perfectly
agree; nor could perfect agreement be expected, for otherwise their
mental powers would have been the same. Vulpian*(2) remarks: "Les
differences reelles qui existent entre l'encephale de l'homme et celui
des singes superieurs, sont bien minimes. It ne faut pas se faire
d'illusions a cet egard. L'homme est bien plus pres des singes
anthropomorphes par les caracteres anatomiques de son cerveau que
ceux-ci ne le sont non seulement des autres mammiferes, mais meme de
certains quadrumanes, des guenons et des macaques." But it would be
superfluous here to give further details on the correspondence between
man and the higher mammals in the structure of the brain and all other
parts of the body.
* Grosshirnwindungen des Menschen, 1868, s. 96. The conclusions of
this author, as well as those of Gratiolet and Aeby, concerning the
brain, will be discussed by Prof. Huxley in the appendix.
*(2) Lec. sur la Phys., 1866, p. 890, as quoted by M. Dally, L'Ordre
des Primates et le Transformisme, 1868, p. 29.
It may, however, be worth while to specify a few points, not
directly or obviously connected with structure, by which this
correspondence or relationship is well shewn.
Man is liable to receive from the lower animals, and to
communicate to them, certain diseases, as hydrophobia, variola, the
glanders, syphilis, cholera, herpes, &c.;* and this fact proves the
close similarity*(2) of their tissues and blood, both in minute
structure and composition, far more plainly than does their comparison
under the best microscope, or by the aid of the best chemical
analysis. Monkeys are liable to many of the same non-contagious
diseases as we are; thus Rengger,*(3) who carefully observed for a
long time the Cebus azarae in its native land, found it liable to
catarrh, with the usual symptoms, and which, when often recurrent, led
to consumption. These monkeys suffered also from apoplexy,
inflammation of the bowels, and cataract in the eye.The younger ones
when shedding their milk-teeth often died from fever. Medicines
produced the same effect on them as on us. Many kinds of monkeys
have a strong taste for tea, coffee, and spirituous liquors: they will
also, as I have myself seen, smoke tobacco with pleasure.*(4) Brehm
asserts that the natives of north-eastern Africa catch the wild
baboons by exposing vessels with strong beer, by which they are made
drunk. He has seen some of these animals, which he kept in
confinement, in this state; and he gives a laughable account of
their behaviour and strange grimaces. On the following morning they
were very cross and dismal; they held their aching heads with both
hands, and wore a most pitiable expression: when beer or wine was
offered them, they turned away with disgust, but relished the juice of
lemons.*(5) An American monkey, an Ateles, after getting drunk on
brandy, would never touch it again, and thus was wiser than many
men. These trifling facts prove how similar the nerves of taste must
be in monkeys and man, and how similarly their whole nervous system is
affected.
* Dr. W. Lauder Lindsay has treated this subject at some length in
the Journal of Mental Science, July, 1871: and in the Edinburgh
Veterinary Review, July, 1858.
*(2) A reviewer has criticised (British Quarterly Review, Oct. 1,
1871, p. 472) what I have here said with much severity and contempt:
but as I do not use the term identity, I cannot see that I am
greatly in error. There appears to me a strong analogy between the
same infection or contagion producing the same result, or one
closely similar, in two distinct animals, and the testing of two
distinct fluids by the same chemical reagent.
*(3) Naturgeschichte der Saugethiere von Paraguay, 1830, s. 50.
*(4) The same tests are common to some animals much lower in the
scale. Mr. A. Nicols informs me that he kept in Queensland, in
Australia, three individuals of the Phaseolarctus cinereus, and
that, without having been taught in any way, they acquired a strong
taste for rum, and for smoking tobacco.
*(5) Brehm, Illustriertes Thierleben, B. i., 1864, 75, 86. On the
Ateles, s. 105. For other analogous statements, see ss. 25, 107.
Man is infested with internal parasites, sometimes causing fatal
effects; and is plagued by external parasites, all of which belong
to the same genera or families as those infesting other mammals, and
in the case of scabies to the same species.* Man is subject, like
other mammals, birds, and even insects,*(2) to that mysterious law,
which causes certain normal processes, such as gestation, as well as
the maturation and duration of various diseases, to follow lunar
periods. His wounds are repaired by the same process of healing; and
the stumps left after the amputation of his limbs, especially during
an early embryonic period, occasionally possess some power of
regeneration, as in the lowest animals.*(3)
* Dr. W. Lauder Lindsay, Edinburgh Veterinary Review, July, 1858, p.
13.
*(2) With respect to insects see Dr. Laycock, "On a General Law of
Vital Periodicity," British Association, 1842. Dr. Macculloch,
Silliman's North American Journal of Science, vol. xvii., p. 305,
has seen a dog suffering from tertian ague. Hereafter I shall return
to this subject.
*(3) I have given the evidence on this head in my Variation of
Animals and Plants under Domestication, vol. ii., p. 15, and more
could be added.
The whole process of that most important function, the
reproduction of the species, is strikingly the same in all mammals,
from the first act of courtship by the male,* to the birth and
nurturing of the young. Monkeys are born in almost as helpless a
condition as our own infants; and in certain genera the young differ
fully as much in appearance from the adults, as do our children from
their full-grown parents.*(2) It has been urged by some writers, as an
important distinction, that with man the young arrive at maturity at a
much later age than with any other animal: but if we look to the races
of mankind which inhabit tropical countries the difference is not
great, for the orang is believed not to be adult till the age of
from ten to fifteen years.*(3) Man differs from woman in size,
bodily strength, hairiness, &c., as well as in mind, in the same
manner as do the two sexes of many mammals. So that the correspondence
in general structure, in the minute structure of the tissues, in
chemical composition and in constitution, between man and the higher
animals, especially the anthropomorphous apes, is extremely close.
* Mares e diversis generibus Quadrumanorum sine dubio dignoscunt
feminas humanas a maribus. Primum, credo, odoratu, postea aspectu. Mr.
Youatt, qui diu in Hortis Zoologicis (Bestiariis) medicus animalium
erat, vir in rebus observandis cautus et sagax, hoc mihi certissime
probavit, et curatores ejusdem loci et alii e ministirs
confirmaverunt. Sir Andrew Smith et Brehm notabant idem in
Cynocephalo. Illustrissimus Cuvier etiam narrat multa de hac re, qua
ut opinor, nihil turpius potest indicari inter omnia hominibus et
Quadrumanis communia. Narrat enim Cynocephalum quendam in furorem
incidere aspectu feminarum aliquarem, sed nequaquam accendi tanto
furore ab omnibus. Semper eligebat juniores, et dignoscebat in
turba, et advocabat voce gestuque.
*(2) This remark is made with respect to Cynocephalus and the
anthropomorphous apes by Geoffroy Saint-Hilaire and F. Cuvier,
Histoire Nat. des Mammiferes, tom. i., 1824.
*(3) Huxley, Man's Place in Nature, 1863, p. 34.
Embryonic Development. Man is developed from an ovule, about the
125th of an inch in diameter, which differs in no respect from the
ovules of other animals. The embryo itself at a very early period
can hardly be distinguished from that of other members of the
vertebrate kingdom. At this period the arteries run in arch-like
branches, as if to carry the blood to branchiae which are not
present in the higher Vertebrata, though the slits on the sides of the
neck still remain (see f, g, fig. 1), marking their former position.
At a somewhat later period, when the extremities are developed, "the
feet of lizards and mammals," as the illustrious von Baer remarks,
"the wings and feet of birds, no less than the hands and feet of
man, all arise from the same fundamental form." It is, says Prof.
Huxley,* "quite in the later stages of development that the young
human being presents marked differences from the young ape, while
the latter departs as much from the dog in its developments, as the
man does. Startling as this last assertion may appear to be, it is
demonstrably true."
* Man's Place in Nature, 1863, p. 67.
As some of my readers may never have seen a drawing of an embryo,
I have given one of man and another of a dog, at about the same
early stage of development, carefully copied from two works of
undoubted accuracy.*
* The human embryo (see upper fig.) is from Ecker, Icones Phys.,
1851-1859, tab. xxx., fig. 2. The drawing of this embryo is much
magnified. The embryo of the dog is from Bischoff,
Entwicklungsgeschichte des Hunde-Eies, 1845, tab. xi., fig. 42 B. This
drawing is magnified, the embryo being twenty-five days old. The
internal viscera have been omitted, and the uterine appendages in both
drawings removed. I was directed to these figures by Prof. Huxley,
from whose work, Man's Place in Nature, the idea of giving them was
taken. Haeckel has also given analogous drawings in his
Schopfungsgeschichte.
After the foregoing statements made by such high authorities, it
would be superfluous on my part to give a number of borrowed
details, shewing that the embryo of man closely resembles that of
other mammals. It may, however, be added, that the human embryo
likewise resembles certain low forms when adult in various points of
structure. For instance, the heart at first exists as a simple
pulsating vessel; the excreta are voided through a cloacal passage;
and the os coccyx projects like a true extending considerably beyond
the rudimentary legs."* In the embryos of all air-breathing
vertebrates, certain glands, called the corpora Wolffiana,
correspond with, and act like the kidneys of mature fishes.*(2) Even
at a later embryonic period, some striking resemblances between man
and the lower animals may be observed. Bischoff says "that the
convolutions of the brain in a human foetus at the end of the
seventh month reach about the same stage of development as in a baboon
when adult."*(3) The great toe, as Professor Owen remarks,*(4)
"which forms the fulcrum when standing or walking, is perhaps the most
characteristic peculiarity in the human structure"; but in an
embryo, about an inch in length, Prof. Wyman*(5) found "that the great
toe was shorter than the others; and, instead of being parallel to
them, projected at an angle from the side of the foot, thus
corresponding with the permanent condition of this part in the
Quadrumana." I will conclude with a quotation from Huxley,*(6) who,
after asking does man originate in a different way from a dog, bird,
frog or fish, says, "The reply is not doubtful for a moment; without
question, the mode of origin, and the early stages of the
development of man, are identical with those of the animals
immediately below him in the scale: without a doubt in these respects,
he is far nearer to apes than the apes are to the dog."
* Prof. Wyman in Proceedings of the American Academy of Sciences,
vol. iv., 1860, p. 17.
*(2) Owen, Anatomy of Vertebrates, vol. i., p. 533.
*(3) Die Grosshirnwindungen des Menschen 1868, s. 95.
*(4) Anatomy of Vertebrates, vol. ii., p. 553.
*(5) Proc. Soc. Nat. Hist., Boston, 1863, vol. ix., p. 185.
*(6) Man's Place in Nature, p. 65.
Rudiments. This subject, though not intrinsically more important
than the two last, will for several reasons be treated here more
fully.* Not one of the higher animals can be named which does not bear
some part in a rudimentary condition; and man forms no exception to
the rule. Rudimentary organs must be distinguished from those that are
nascent; though in some cases the distinction is not easy. The
former are either absolutely useless, such as the mammee of male
quadrupeds, or the incisor teeth of ruminants which never cut
through the gums; or they are of such slight service to their
present possessors, that we can hardly suppose that they were
developed under the conditions which now exist. Organs in this
latter state are not strictly rudimentary, but they are tending in
this direction. Nascent organs, on the other hand, though not fully
developed, are of high service to their possessors, and are capable of
further development. Rudimentary organs are eminently variable; and
this is partly intelligible, as they are useless, or nearly useless,
and consequently are no longer subjected to natural selection. They
often become wholly suppressed. When this occurs, they are
nevertheless liable to occasional reappearance through reversion- a
circumstance well worthy of attention.
* I had written a rough copy of this chapter before reading a
valuable paper, "Caratteri rudimentali in ordine all' origine dell'
uomo" (Annuario della Soc. d. Naturalisti, Modena, 1867, p. 81), by G.
Canestrini, to which paper I am considerably indebted. Haeckel has
given admirable discussions on this whole subject, under the title
of "Dysteleology," in his Generelle Morphologie and
Shopfungsgeschichte.
The chief agents in causing organs to become rudimentary seem to
have been disuse at that period of life when the organ is chiefly used
(and this is generally during maturity), and also inheritance at a
corresponding period of life. The term "disuse" does not relate merely
to the lessened action of muscles, but includes a diminished flow of
blood to a part or organ, from being subjected to fewer alternations
of pressure, or from becoming in any way less habitually active.
Rudiments, however, may occur in one sex of those parts which are
normally present in the other sex; and such rudiments, as we shall
hereafter see, have often originated in a way distinct from those here
referred to. In some cases, organs have been reduced by means of
natural selection, from having become injurious to the species under
changed habits of life. The process of reduction is probably often
aided through the two principles of compensation and economy of
growth; but the later stages of reduction, after disuse has done all
that can fairly be attributed to it, and when the saving to be
effected by the economy of growth would be very small,* are
difficult to understand. The final and complete suppression of a part,
already useless and much reduced in size, in which case neither
compensation or economy can come into play, is perhaps intelligible by
the aid of the hypothesis of pangenesis. But as the whole subject of
rudimentary organs has been discussed and illustrated in my former
works,*(2) I need here say no more on this head.
* Some good criticisms on this subject have been given by Messrs.
Murie and Mivart, in Transactions, Zoological Society, 1869, vol.
vii., p. 92.
*(2) Variation of Animals and Plants under Domestication, vol. ii
pp. 317 and 397. See also Origin of Species.(OOS)
Rudiments of various muscles have been observed in many parts of the
human body;* and not a few muscles, which are regularly present in
some of the lower animals can occasionally be detected in man in a
greatly reduced condition. Every one must have noticed the power which
many animals, especially horses, possess of moving or twitching
their skin; and this is effected by the panniculus carnosus.
Remnants of this muscle in an efficient state are found in various
parts of our bodies; for instance, the muscle on the forehead, by
which the eyebrows are raised. The platysma myoides, which is well
developed on the neck, belongs to this system. Prof. Turner, of
Edinburgh, has occasionally detected, as he informs me, muscular
fasciculi in five different situations, namely in the axillae, near
the scapulae, &c., all of which must be referred to the system of
the panniculus. He has also shewn*(2) that the musculus sternalis or
sternalis brutorum, which is not an extension of the rectus
abdominalis, but is closely allied to the panniculus, occurred in
the proportion of about three per cent. in upward of 600 bodies: he
adds, that this muscle affords "an excellent illustration of the
statement that occasional and rudimentary structures are especially
liable to variation in arrangement."
* For instance, M. Richard (Annales des Sciences Nat., 3d series,
Zoolog., 1852, tom. xviii., p. 13) describes and figures rudiments
of what he calls the "muscle pedieux de la main," which he says is
sometimes "infiniment petit." Another muscle, called "le tibial
posterieur," is generally quite absent in the hand, but appears from
time to time in a more or less rudimentary condition.
*(2) Prof. W. Turner, Proceedings of the Royal Society of Edinburgh,
1866-67, p. 65.
Some few persons have the power of contracting the superficial
muscles on their scalps; and these muscles are in a variable and
partially rudimentary condition. M.A. de Candolle has communicated
to me a curious instance of the long-continued persistence or
inheritance of this power, as well as of its unusual development. He
knows a family, in which one member, the present head of the family,
could, when a youth, pitch several heavy books from his head by the
movement of the scalp alone; and he won wagers by performing this
feat. His father, uncle, grandfather, and his three children possess
the same power to the same unusual degree. This family became
divided eight generations ago into two branches; so that the head of
the above-mentioned branch is cousin in the seventh degree to the head
of the other branch. This distant cousin resides in another part of
France; and on being asked whether he possessed the same faculty,
immediately exhibited his power. This case offers a good
illustration how persistent may be the transmission of an absolutely
useless faculty, probably derived from our remote semi-human
progenitors; since many monkeys have, and frequently use the power, of
largely moving their scalps up and down.*
* See my Expression of the Emotions in Man and Animals, 1872, p.
144.
The extrinsic muscles which serve to move the external ear, and
the intrinsic muscles which move the different parts, are in a
rudimentary condition in man, and they all belong to the system of the
panniculus; they are also variable in development, or at least in
function. I have seen one man who could draw the whole ear forwards;
other men can draw it upwards; another who could draw it backwards;*
and from what one of these persons told me, it is probable that most
of us, by often touching our ears, and thus directing our attention
towards them, could recover some power of movement by repeated trials.
The power of erecting and directing the shell of the ears to the
various points of the compass, is no doubt of the highest service to
many animals, as they thus perceive the direction of danger; but I
have never heard, on sufficient evidence, of a man who possessed
this power, the one which might be of use to him. The whole external
shell may be considered a rudiment, together with the various folds
and prominences (helix and anti-helix, tragus and anti-tragus, &c.)
which in the lower animals strengthen and support the ear when
erect, without adding much to its weight. Some authors, however,
suppose that the cartilage of the shell serves to transmit
vibrations to the acoustic nerve; but Mr. Toynbee,*(2) after
collecting all the known evidence on this head, concludes that the
external shell is of no distinct use. The ears of the chimpanzee and
orang are curiously like those of man, and the proper muscles are
likewise but very slightly developed.*(3) I am also assured by the
keepers in the Zoological Gardens that these animals never move or
erect their ears; so that they are in an equally rudimentary condition
with those of man, as far as function is concerned. Why these animals,
as well as the progenitors of man, should have lost the power of
erecting their ears, we can not say. It may be, though I am not
satified with this view, that owing to their arboreal habits and great
strength they were but little exposed to danger, and so during a
lengthened period moved their ears but little, and thus gradually lost
the power of moving them. This would be a parallel case with that of
those large and heavy birds, which, from inhabiting oceanic islands,
have not been exposed to the attacks of beasts of prey, and have
consequently lost the power of using their wings for flight. The
inability to move the ears in man and several apes is, however, partly
compensated by the freedom with which they can move the head in a
horizontal plane, so as to catch sounds from all directions. It has
been asserted that the ear of man alone possesses a lobule; but "a
rudiment of it is found in the gorilla";*(4) and, as I hear from Prof.
Preyer, it is not rarely absent in the negro.
* Canestrini quotes Hyrtl. (Annuario della Soc. dei Naturalisti,
Modena, 1897, p. 97) to the same effect.
*(2) The Diseases of the Ear, by J. Toynbee, F. R. S., 1860, p.
12. A distinguished physiologist, Prof. Preyer, informs me that he had
lately been experimenting on the function of the shell of the ear, and
has come to nearly the same conclusion as that given here.
*(3) Prof. A. Macalister, Annals and Magazine of Natural History,
vol. vii., 1871, p. 342.
*(4) Mr. St. George Mivart, Elementary Anatomy, 1873, p. 396.
The celebrated sculptor, Mr. Woolner, informs me of one little
peculiarity in the external ear, which he has often observed both in
men and women, and of which he perceived the full significance. His
attention was first called to the subject whilst at work on his figure
of Puck, to which he had given pointed ears. He was thus led to
examine the ears of various monkeys, and subsequently more carefully
those of man. The peculiarity consists in a little blunt point,
projecting from the inwardly folded margin, or helix. When present, it
is developed at birth, and according to Prof. Ludwig Meyer, more
frequently in man than in woman. Mr. Woolner made an exact model of
one such case, and sent me the accompanying drawing (see fig. 2).
These points not only project inwards towards the centre of the ear,
but often a little outwards from its plane, so as to be visible when
the head is viewed from directly in front or behind. They are variable
in size, and somewhat in position, standing either a little higher
or lower; and they sometimes occur on one ear and not on the other.
They are not confined to mankind, for I observed a case in one of
the spider-monkeys (Ateles beelzebuth) in our Zoological Gardens;
and Mr. E. Ray Lankester informs me of another case in a chimpanzee in
the gardens at Hamburg. The helix obviously consists of the extreme
margin of the ear folded inwards; and this folding appears to be in
some manner connected with the whole external ear being permanently
pressed backwards. In many monkeys, which do not stand high in the
order, as baboons and some species of Macacus,* the upper portion of
the ear is slightly pointed, and the margin is not at all folded
inwards; but if the margin were to be thus folded, a slight point
would necessarily project inwards towards the centre, and probably a
little outwards from the plane of the ear; and this I believe to be
their origin in many cases. On the other hand, Prof. L. Meyer, in an
able paper recently published,*(2) maintains that the whole case is
one of mere variability; and that the projections are not real ones,
but are due to the internal cartilage on each side of the points not
having been fully developed. I am quite ready to admit that this is
the correct explanation in many instances, as in those figured by
Prof. Meyer, in which there are several minute points, or the whole
margin is sinuous. I have myself seen, through the kindness of Dr.
L. Down, the ear of a microcephalus idiot, on which there is a
projection on the outside of the helix, and not on the inward folded
edge, so that this point can have no relation to a former apex of
the ear. Nevertheless in some cases, my original view, that the points
are vestiges of the tips of formerly erect and pointed ears, still
seems to me probable. I think so from the frequency of their
occurrence, and from the general correspondence in position with
that of the tip of a pointed ear. In one case, of which a photograph
has been sent me, the projection is so large, that supposing, in
accordance with Prof. Meyer's view, the ear to be made perfect by
the equal development of the cartilage throughout the whole extent
of the margin, it would have covered fully one-third of the whole ear.
Two cases have been communicated to me, one in North America, and
the other in England, in which the upper margin is not at all folded
inwards, but is pointed, so that it closely resembles the pointed
ear of an ordinary quadruped in outline. In one of these cases,
which was that of a young child, the father compared the ear with
the drawing which I have given*(3) of the ear of a monkey, the
Cynopithecus niger, and says that their outlines are closely
similar. If, in these two cases, the margin had been folded inwards in
the normal manner, an inward projection must have been formed. I may
add that in two other cases the outline still remains somewhat
pointed, although the margin of the upper part of the ear is
normally folded inwards- in one of them, however, very narrowly. The
following woodcut (see fig. 3) is an accurate copy of a photograph
of the foetus of an orang (kindly sent me by Dr. Nitsche), in which it
may be seen how different the pointed outline of the ear is at this
period from its adult condition, when it bears a close general
resemblance to that of man. It is evident that the folding over of the
tip of such an ear, unless it chang greatly during its further
development, would give rise to a point projecting inwards. On the
whole, it still seems to me probable that the points in question are
in some cases, both in man and apes, vestiges of a former condition.
* See also some remarks, and the drawings of the ears of the
Lemuroidea, in Messrs. Murie and Mivart's excellent paper in
Transactions of the Zoological Society, vol. vii., 1869, pp. 6 and 90.
*(2) Uber das Darwin'sche Spitzohr," Archiv fur Path. Anst. und
Phys., 1871, p. 485.
*(3) The Expression of the Emotions, p. 136.
The nictitating membrane, or third eyelid, with its accessory
muscles and other structures, is especially well developed in birds,
and is of much functional importance to them, as it can be rapidly
drawn across the whole eyeball. It is found in some reptiles and
amphibians, and in certain fishes, as in sharks. It is fairly well
developed in the two lower divisions of the mammalian series,
namely, in the Monotremata and marsupials, and in some few of the
higher mammals, as in the walrus. But in man, the Quadrumana, and most
other mammals, it exists, as is admitted by all anatomists, as a
mere rudiment, called the semilunar fold.*
* Muller's Elements of Physiology, Eng. translat., 1842, vol. ii.,
p. 1117. Owen, Anatomy of Vertebrates, vol. iii., p. 260; ibid., on
the walrus, Proceedings of the Zoological Society, November 8, 1854.
See also R. Knox, Great Artists and Anatomists, p. 106. This
rudiment apparently is somewhat larger in Negroes and Australians than
in Europeans, see Carl Vogt, Lectures on Man, Eng. translat., p. 129.
The sense of smell is of the highest importance to the greater
number of mammals- to some, as the ruminants, in warning them of
danger; to others, as the Carnivora, in finding their prey; to others,
again, as the wild boar, for both purposes combined. But the sense
of smell is of extremely slight service, if any, even to the dark
coloured races of men, in whom it is much more highly developed than
in the white and civilised races.* Nevertheless it does not warn
them of danger, nor guide them to their food; nor does it prevent
the Esquimaux from sleeping in the most fetid atmosphere, nor many
savages from eating half-putrid meat. In Europeans the power differs
greatly in different individuals, as I am assured by an eminent
naturalist who possesses this sense highly developed, and who has
attended to the subject. Those who believe in the principle of gradual
evolution, will not readily admit that the sense of smell in its
present state was originally acquired by man, as he now exists. He
inherits the power in an enfeebled and so far rudimentary condition,
from some early progenitor, to whom it was highly serviceable, and
by whom it was continually used. In those animals which have this
sense highly developed, such as dogs and horses, the recollection of
persons and of places is strongly associated with their odour; and
we can thus perhaps understand how it is, as Dr. Maudsley has truly
remarked,*(2) that the sense of smell in man "is singularly
effective in recalling vividly the ideas and images of forgotten
scenes and places."
* The account given by Humboldt of the power of smell possessed by
the natives of South America is well known, and has been confirmed
by others. M. Houzeau (Etudes sur les Facultes Mentales, &c., tom. i.,
1872, p. 91) asserts that he repeatedly made experiments, and proved
that Negroes and Indians could recognise persons in the dark by
their odour. Dr. W. Ogle has made some curious observations on the
connection between the power of smell and the colouring matter of
the mucous membrane of the olfactory region as well as of the skin
of the body. I have, therefore, spoken in the text of the
dark-coloured races having a finer sense of smell than the white
races. See his paper, Medico-Chirurgical Transactions, London, vol.
liii., 1870, p. 276.
*(2) The Physiology and Pathology of Mind, 2nd ed., 1868, p. 134.
Man differs conspicuously from all the other primates in being
almost naked. But a few short straggling hairs are found over the
greater part of the body in the man, and fine down on that of a woman.
The different races differ much in hairiness; and in the individuals
of the same race the hairs are highly variable, not only in abundance,
but likewise in position: thus in some Europeans the shoulders are
quite naked, whilst in others they bear thick tufts of hair.* There
can be little doubt that the hairs thus scattered over the body are
the rudiments of the uniform hairy coat of the lower animals. This
view is rendered all the more probable, as it is known that fine,
short, and pale-coloured hairs on the limbs and other parts of the
body, occasionally become developed into "thickset, long, and rather
coarse dark hairs," when abnormally nourished near old-standing
inflamed surfaces.*(2)
* Eschricht, "Uber die Richtung der Haare am menschlichen Korper,"
Muller's Archiv fur Anat. und Phys., 1837, s. 47. I shall often have
to refer to this very curious paper.
*(2) Paget, Lectures on Surgical Pathology, 1853, vol. i., p. 71.
I am informed by Sir James Paget that often several members of a
family have a few hairs in their eyebrows much longer than the others;
so that even this slight peculiarity seems to be inherited. These
hairs, too, seem to have their representatives; for in the chimpanzee,
and in certain species of Maeacus, there are scattered hairs of
considerable length rising from the naked skin above the eyes, and
corresponding to our eyebrows; similar long hairs project from the
hairy covering of the superciliary ridges in some baboons.
The fine wool-like hair, or so-called lanugo, with which the human
foetus during the sixth month is thickly covered, offers a more
curious case. It is first developed, during the fifth month, on the
eyebrows and face, and especially round the mouth, where it is much
longer than that on the head. A moustache of this kind was observed by
Eschricht* on a female foetus; but this is not so surprising a
circumstance as it may at first appear, for the two sexes generally
resemble each other in all external characters during an early
period of growth. The direction and arrangement of the hairs on all
parts of the foetal body are the same as in the adult, but are subject
to much variability. The whole surface, including even the forehead
and ears, is thus thickly clothed; but it is a significant fact that
the palms of the hands and the soles of the feet are quite naked, like
the inferior surfaces of all four extremities in most of the lower
animals. As this can hardly be an accidental coincidence, the woolly
covering of the foetus probably represents the first permanent coat of
hair in those mammals which are born hairy. Three or four cases have
been recorded of persons born with their whole bodies and faces
thickly covered with fine long hairs; and this strange condition is
strongly inherited, and is correlated with an abnormal condition of
the teeth.*(2) Prof. Alex. Brandt informs me that he has compared
the hair from the face of a man thus characterised, aged
thirty-five, with the lanugo of a foetus, and finds it quite similar
in texture; therefore, as he remarks, the case may be attributed to an
arrest of development in the hair, together with its continued growth.
Many delicate children, as I have been assured by a surgeon to a
hospital for children, have their backs covered by rather long silky
hairs; and such cases probably come under the same head.
* Eschricht, ibid., ss. 40, 47.
*(2) See my Variation of Animals and Plants under Domestication,
vol. ii., p. 327. Prof. Alex. Brandt has recently sent me an
additional case of a father and son, born in Russia, with these
peculiarities. I have received drawings of both from Paris.
It appears as if the posterior molar or wisdom-teeth were tending to
become rudimentary in the more civilised races of man. These teeth are
rather smaller than the other molars, as is likewise the case with the
corresponding teeth in the chimpanzee and orang; and they have only
two separate fangs. They do not cut through the gums till about the
seventeenth year, and I have been assured that they are much more
liable to decay, and are earlier lost than the other teeth; but this
is denied by some eminent dentists. They are also much more liable
to vary, both in structure and in the period of their development,
than the other teeth.* In the Melanian races, on the other hand, the
wisdom-teeth are usually furnished with three separate fangs, and
are generally sound; they also differ from the other molars in size,
less than in the Caucasian races.*(2) Prof. Schaaffhausen accounts for
this difference between the races by "the posterior dental portion
of the jaw being always shortened" in those that are civilised,*(3)
and this shortening may, I presume, be attributed to civilised men
habitually feeding on soft, cooked food, and thus using their jaws
less. I am informed by Mr. Brace that it is becoming quite a common
practice in the United States to remove some of the molar teeth of
children, as the jaw does not grow large enough for the perfect
development of the normal number.*(4)
* Dr. Webb, "Teeth in Man and the Anthropoid Apes," as quoted by Dr.
C. Carter Blake in Anthropological Review, July, 1867, p. 299.
*(2) Owen, Anatomy of Vertebrates, vol. iii., pp. 320, 321, and 325.
*(3) "On the Primitive Form of the Skull," Eng. translat., in
Anthropological Review, Oct., 1868, p. 426.
*(4) Prof. Montegazza writes to me from Florence, that he has lately
been studying the last molar teeth in the different races of man,
and has come to the same conclusion as that given in my text, viz.,
that in the higher or civilised races they are on the road towards
atrophy or elimination.
With respect to the alimentary canal, I have met with an account
of only a single rudiment, namely the vermiform appendage of the
caecum. The caecum is a branch or diverticulum of the intestine,
ending in a cul-de-sac, and is extremely long in many of the lower
vegetable-feeding mammals. In the marsupial koala it is actually
more than thrice as long as the whole body.* It is sometimes
produced into a long gradually-tapering point, and is sometimes
constricted in parts. It appears as if, in consequence of changed diet
or habits, the caecum had become much shortened in various animals,
the vermiform appendage being left as a rudiment of the shortened
part. That this appendage is a rudiment, we may infer from its small
size, and from the evidence which Prof. Canestrini*(2) has collected
of its variability in man. It is occasionally quite absent, or again
is largely developed. The passage is sometimes completely closed for
half or two-thirds of its length, with the terminal part consisting of
a flattened solid expansion. In the orang this appendage is long and
convoluted: in man it arises from the end of the short caecum, and
is commonly from four to five inches in length, being only about the
third of an inch in diameter. Not only is it useless, but it is
sometimes the cause of death, of which fact I have lately heard two
instances: this is due to small hard bodies, such as seeds, entering
the passage, and causing inflammation.*(3)
* Owen, Anatomy of Vertebrates, vol. iii., pp 416, 434, 441.
*(2) Annuario della Soc. d. Nat. Modena, 1867, p. 94.
*(3) M. C. Martins ("De l'Unite Organique," in Revue des Deux
Mondes, June 15, 1862, p. 16) and Haeckel (Generelle Morphologie, B.
ii., s. 278), have both remarked on the singular fact of this rudiment
sometimes causing death.
In some of the lower Quadrumana, in the Lemuridae and Carnivora,
as well as in many marsupials, there is a passage near the lower end
of the humerus, called the supra-condyloid foramen, through which
the great nerve of the fore limb and often the great artery pass.
Now in the humerus of man, there is generally a trace of this passage,
which is sometimes fairly well developed, being formed by a
depending hook-like process of bone, completed by a band of
ligament. Dr. Struthers,* who has closely attended to the subject, has
now shewn that this peculiarity is sometimes inherited, as it has
occurred in a father, and in no less than four out of his seven
children. When present, the great nerve invariably passes through
it; and this clearly indicates that it is the homologue and rudiment
of the supra-condyloid foramen of the lower animals. Prof. Turner
estimates, as he informs me, that it occurs in about one per cent of
recent skeletons. But if the occasional development of this
structure in man is, as seems probable, due to reversion, it is a
return to a very ancient state of things, because in the higher
Quadrumana it is absent.
* With respect to inheritance, see Dr. Struthers in the Lancet, Feb.
15, 1873, and another important paper, ibid., Jan. 24, 1863, p. 83.
Dr. Knox, as I am informed, was the first anatomist who drew attention
to this peculiar structure in man; see his Great Artists and
Anatomists, p. 63. See also an important memoir on this process by Dr.
Gruber, in the Bulletin de l'Acad. Imp. de St. Petersbourg, tom. xii.,
1867, p. 448.
There is another foramen or perforation in the humerus, occasionally
present in man, which may be called the inter-condyloid. This
occurs, but not constantly, in various anthropoid and other apes,* and
likewise in many of the lower animals. It is remarkable that this
perforation seems to have been present in man much more frequently
during ancient times than recently. Mr. Busk*(2) has collected the
following evidence on this head: Prof. Broca "noticed the
perforation in four and a half per cent of the arm-bones collected
in the 'Cimetiere, du Sud,' at Paris; and in the Grotto of Orrony, the
contents of which are referred to the Bronze period, as many as
eight humeri out of thirty-two were perforated; but this extraordinary
proportion, he thinks, might be due to the cavern having been a sort
of 'family vault.' Again, M. Dupont found thirty per cent of
perforated bones in the caves of the Valley of the Lesse, belonging to
the Reindeer period; whilst M. Leguay, in a sort of dolmen at
Argenteuil, observed twenty-five per cent to be perforated; and M.
Pruner-Bey found twenty-six per cent in the same condition in bones
from Vaureal. Nor should it be left unnoticed that M. Pruner-Bey
states that this condition is common in Guanche skeletons." It is an
interesting fact that ancient races, in this and several other
cases, more frequently present structures which resemble those of
the lower animals than do the modern. One chief cause seems to be that
the ancient races stand somewhat nearer in the long line of descent to
their remote animal-like progenitors.
* Mr. St. George Mivart, Transactions Phil. Soc., 1867, p. 310.
*(2) "On the Caves of Gibraltar," Transactions of the
International Congress of Prehistoric Archaeology, Third Session,
1869, p. 159. Prof. Wyman has lately shewn (Fourth Annual Report,
Peabody Museum, 1871, p. 20), that this perforation is present in
thirty-one per cent of some human remains from ancient mounds in the
Western United States, and in Florida. It frequently occurs in the
negro.
In man, the os coccyx, together with certain other vertebrae
hereafter to be described, though functionless as a tail, plainly
represent this part in other vertebrate animals. At an early embryonic
period it is free, and projects beyond the lower extremities; as may
be seen in the drawing (see fig. 1) of a human embryo. Even after
birth it has been known, in certain rare and anomalous cases,* to form
a small external rudiment of a tail. The os coccyx is short, usually
including only four vertebrae, all anchylosed together: and these
are in a rudimentary condition, for they consist, with the exception
of the basal one, of the centrum alone.*(2) They are furnished with
some small muscles; one of which, as I am informed by Prof. Turner,
has been expressly described by Theile as a rudimentary repetition
of the extensor of the tail, a muscle which is so largely developed in
many mammals.
* Quatrefages has lately collected the evidence on this subject.
Revue des Cours Scientifiques, 1867-1868, p. 625. In 1840
Fleischmann exhibited a human foetus bearing a free tail, which, as is
not always the case, included vertebral bodies; and this tail was
critically examined by the many anatomists present at the meeting of
naturalists at Erlangen (see Marshall in Niederland. Archiv fur
Zoologie, December, 1871).
*(2) Owen, On the Nature of Limbs, 1849, p. 114.
The spinal cord in man extends only as far downwards as the last
dorsal or first lumbar vertebra; but a thread-like structure (the
filum terminale) runs down the axis of the sacral part of the spinal
canal, and even along the back of the coccygeal bones. The upper
part of this filament, as Prof. Turner informs me, is undoubtedly
homologous with the spinal cord; but the lower part apparently
consists merely of the pia mater, or vascular investing membrane. Even
in this case the os coccyx may be said to possess a vestige of so
important a structure as the spinal cord, though no longer enclosed
within a bony canal. The following fact, for which I am also
indebted to Prof. Turner, shews how closely the os coccyx
corresponds with the true tail in the lower animals: Luschka has
recently discovered at the extremity of the coccygeal bones a very
peculiar convoluted body, which is continuous with the middle sacral
artery; and this discovery led Krause and Meyer to examine the tail of
a monkey (Maeacus), and of a cat, in both of which they found a
similarly convoluted body, though not at the extremity.
The reproductive system offers various rudimentary structures; but
these differ in one important respect from the foregoing cases. Here
we are not concerned with the vestige of a part which does not
belong to the species in an efficient state, but with a part efficient
in the one sex, and represented in the other by a mere rudiment.
Nevertheless, the occurrence of such rudiments is as difficult to
explain, on the belief of the separate creation of each species, as in
the foregoing cases. Hereafter I shall have to recur to these
rudiments, and shall shew that their presence generally depends merely
on inheritance, that is, on parts acquired by one sex having been
partially transmitted to the other. I will in this place only give
some instances of such rudiments. It is well known that in the males
of all mammals, including man, rudimentary mammae exist. These in
several instances have become well developed, and have yielded a
copious supply of milk. Their essential identity in the two sexes is
likewise shewn by their occasional sympathetic enlargement in both
during an attack of the measles. The vesicula prostatica, which has
been observed in many male mammals, is now universally acknowledged to
be the homologue of the female uterus, together with the connected
passage. It is impossible to read Leuckart's able description of
this organ, and his reasoning, without admitting the justness of his
conclusion. This is especially clear in the case of those mammals in
which the true female uterus bifurcates, for in the males of these the
vesicula likewise bifurcates.* Some other rudimentary structures
belonging to the reproductive system might have been here adduced.*(2)
* Leuckart, in Todd's Cyclopaedia of Anatomy, 1849-52, vol. iv.,
p. 1415. In man this organ is only from three to six lines in
length, but, like so many other rudimentary parts, it is variable in
development as well as in other characters.
*(2) See, on this subject, Owen, Anatomy of Vertebrates, vol.
iii., pp. 675, 676, 706.
The bearing of the three great classes of facts now given is
unmistakeable. But it would be superfluous fully to recapitulate the
line of argument given in detail in my Origin of Species. The
homological construction of the whole frame in the members of the same
class is intelligible, if we admit their descent from a common
progenitor, together with their subsequent adaptation to diversified
conditions. On any other view, the similarity of pattern between the
hand of a man or monkey, the foot of a horse, the flipper of a seal,
the wing of a bat, &c., is utterly inexplicable.* It is no
scientific explanation to assert that they have all been formed on the
same ideal plan. With respect to development, we can clearly
understand, on the principle of variation supervening at a rather late
embryonic period, and being inherited at a corresponding period, how
it is that the embryos of wonderfully different forms should still
retain, more or less perfectly, the structure of their common
progenitor. No other explanation has ever been given of the marvellous
fact that the embryos of a man, dog, seal, bat, reptile, &c., can at
first hardly be distinguished from each other. In order to
understand the existence of rudimentary organs, we have only to
suppose that a former progenitor possessed the parts in question in
a perfect state, and that under changed habits of life they became
greatly reduced, either from simple disuse, or through the natural
selection of those individuals which were least encumbered with a
superfluous part, aided by the other means previously indicated.
* Prof. Bianconi, in a recently published work, illustrated by
admirable engravings (La Theorie Darwinienne et la creation dite
independante, 1874), endeavours to show that homological structures,
in the above and other cases, can be fully explained on mechanical
principles, in accordance with their uses. No one has shewn so well,
how admirably such structures are adapted for their final purpose; and
this adaptation can, as I believe, be explained through natural
selection. In considering the wing of a bat, he brings forward (p.
218) what appears to me (to use Auguste Comte's words) a mere
metaphysical principle, namely, the preservation "in its integrity
of the mammalian nature of the animal." In only a few cases does he
discuss rudiments, and then only those parts which are partially
rudimentary, such as the little hoofs of the pig and ox, which do
not touch the ground; these he shows clearly to be of service to the
animal. It is unfortunate that he did not consider such cases as the
minute teeth, which never cut through the jaw in the ox, or the mammae
of male quadrupeds, or the wings of certain beetles, existing under
the soldered wing-covers, or the vestiges of the pistil and stamens in
various flowers, and many other such cases. Although I greatly
admire Prof. Bianconi's work, yet the belief now held by most
naturalists seems to me left unshaken, that homological structures are
inexplicable on the principle of mere adaptation.
Thus we can understand how it has come to pass that man and all
other vertebrate animals have been constructed on the same general
model, why they pass through the same early stages of development, and
why they retain certain rudiments in common. Consequently we ought
frankly to admit their community of descent: to take any other view,
is to admit that our own structure, and that of all the animals around
us, is a mere snare laid to entrap our judgment. This conclusion is
greatly strengthened, if we look to the members of the whole animal
series, and consider the evidence derived from their affinities or
classification, their geographical distribution and geological
succession. It is only our natural prejudice, and that arrogance which
made our forefathers declare that they were descended from demigods,
which leads us to demur to this conclusion. But the time will before
long come, when it will be thought wonderful that naturalists, who
were well acquainted with the comparative structure and development of
man, and other mammals, should have believed that each was the work of
a separate act of creation.
CHAPTER II.
ON THE MANNER OF DEVELOPMENT OF MAN FROM SOME LOWER FORM.
IT is manifest that man is now subject to much variability. No two
individuals of the same race are quite alike. We may compare
millions of faces, and each will be distinct. There is an equally
great amount of diversity in the proportions and dimensions of the
various parts of the body; the length of the legs being one of the
most variable points.* Although in some quarters of the world an
elongated skull, and in other quarters a short skull prevails, yet
there is great diversity of shape even within the limits of the same
race, as with the aborigines of America and South Australia- the
latter a race "probably as pure and homogeneous in blood, customs, and
language as any in existence"- and even with the inhabitants of so
confined an area as the Sandwich Islands.*(2) An eminent dentist
assures me that there is nearly as much diversity in the teeth as in
the features. The chief arteries so frequently run in abnormal
courses, that is has been found useful for surgical purposes to
calculate from 1040 corpses how often each course prevails.*(3) The
muscles are eminently variable: thus those of the foot were found by
Prof. Turner*(4) not to be strictly alike in any two out of fifty
bodies; and in some the deviations were considerable. He adds, that
the power of performing the appropriate movements must have been
modified in accordance with the several deviations. Mr. J. Wood has
recorded*(5) the occurrence of 295 muscular variations in thirty-six
subjects, and in another set of the same number no less than 558
variations, those occurring on both sides of the body being only
reckoned as one. In the last set, not one body out of the thirty-six
was "found totally wanting in departures from the standard
descriptions of the muscular system given in anatomical text books." A
single body presented the extraordinary number of twenty-five distinct
abnormalities. The same muscle sometimes varies in many ways: thus
Prof. Macalister describes*(6) no less than twenty distinct variations
in the palmaris accessorius.
* Investigations in the Military and Anthropological Statistics of
American Soldiers, by B. A. Gould, 1869, p. 256.
*(2) With respect to the " Cranial forms of the American
aborigines," see Dr. Aitken Meigs in Proc. Acad. Nat. Sci.
Philadelphia, May, 1868. On the Australians, see Huxley, in Lyell's
Antiquity of Man, 1863, p. 87. On the Sandwich Islanders, Prof. J.
Wyman, Observations on Crania, Boston, 1868, p. 18.
*(3) Anatomy of the Arteries, by R. Quain. Preface, vol. i., 1844.
*(4) Transactions of the Royal Society of Edinburgh, vol. xxiv., pp.
175, 189.
*(5) Proceedings Royal Society, 1867, p. 544; also 1868, pp. 483,
524. There is a previous paper, 1866, p. 229.
*(6) Proc. R. Irish Academy, vol. x., 1868, p. 141.
The famous old anatomist, Wolff,* insists that the internal
viscera are more variable than the external parts: Nulla particula est
quae non aliter et aliter in aliis se habeat hominibus. He has even
written a treatise on the choice of typical examples of the viscera
for representation. A discussion on the beau-ideal of the liver,
lungs, kidneys, &c., as of the human face divine, sounds strange in
our ears.
* Act. Acad. St. Petersburg, 1778, part ii., p. 217.
The variability or diversity of the mental faculties in men of the
same race, not to mention the greater differences between the men of
distinct races, is so notorious that not a word need here be said.
So it is with the lower animals. All who have had charge of menageries
admit this fact, and we see it plainly in our dogs and other
domestic animals. Brehm especially insists that each individual monkey
of those which he kept tame in Africa had its own peculiar disposition
and temper: he mentions one baboon remarkable for its high
intelligence; and the keepers in the Zoological Gardens pointed out to
me a monkey, belonging to the New World division, equally remarkable
for intelligence. Rengger, also, insists on the diversity in the
various mental characters of the monkeys of the same species which
he kept in Paraguay; and this diversity, as he adds, is partly innate,
and partly the result of the manner in which they have been treated or
educated.*
* Brehm, Illustriertes Thierleben, B. i., ss. 58, 87. Rengger,
Saugethiere von Paraguay, s. 57.
I have elsewhere* so fully discussed the subject of Inheritance,
that I need here add hardly anything. A greater number of facts have
been collected with respect to the transmission of the most
trifling, as well as of the most important characters in man, than
in any of the lower animals; though the facts are copious enough
with respect to the latter. So in regard to mental qualities, their
transmission is manifest in our dogs, horses, and other domestic
animals. Besides special tastes and habits, general intelligence,
courage, bad and good temper, &c., are certainly transmitted. With man
we see similar facts in almost every family; and we now know,
through the admirable labours of Mr. Galton,*(2) that genius which
implies a wonderfully complex combination of high faculties, tends
to be inherited; and, on the other hand, it is too certain that
insanity and deteriorated mental powers likewise run in families.
* Variation of Animals and Plants under Domestication, vol. ii.,
chap. xii.
*(2) Hereditary Genius: an Inquiry into its Laws and Consequences,
1869.
With respect to the causes of variability, we are in all cases
very ignorant; but we can see that in man as in the lower animals,
they stand in some relation to the conditions to which each species
has been exposed, during several generations. Domesticated animals
vary more than those in a state of nature; and this is apparently
due to the diversified and changing nature of the conditions to
which they have been subjected. In this respect the different races of
man resemble domesticated animals, and so do the individuals of the
same race, when inhabiting. a very wide area, like that of America. We
see the influence of diversified conditions in the more civilised
nations; for the members belonging to different grades of rank, and
following different occupations, present a greater range of
character than do the members of barbarous nations. But the uniformity
of savages has often been exaggerated, and in some cases can hardly be
said to exist.* It is, nevertheless, an error to speak of man, even if
we look only to the conditions to which he has been exposed, as "far
more domesticated"*(2) than any other animal. Some savage races,
such as the Australians, are not exposed to more diversified
conditions than are many species which have a wide range. In another
and much more important respect, man differs widely from any
strictly domesticated animal; for his breeding has never long been
controlled, either by methodical or unconscious selection. No race
or body of men has been so completely subjugated by other men, as that
certain individuals should be preserved, and thus unconsciously
selected, from somehow excelling in utility to their masters. Nor have
certain male and female individuals been intentionally picked out
and matched, except in the well-known case of the Prussian grenadiers;
and in this case man obeyed, as might have been expected, the law of
methodical selection; for it is asserted that many tall men were
reared in the villages inhabited by the grenadiers and their tall
wives. In Sparta, also, a form of selection was followed, for it was
enacted that all children should be examined shortly after birth;
the well-formed and vigorous being preserved, the others left to
perish.*(3)
* Mr. Bates remarks (The Naturalist on the Amazons, 1863, vol. ii p.
159), with respect to the Indians of the same South American tribe,
"no two of them were at all similar in the shape of the head; one
man had an oval visage with fine features, and another was quite
Mongolian in breadth and prominence of cheek, spread of nostrils,
and obliquity of eyes."
*(2) Blumenbach, Treatises on Anthropology., Eng. translat., 1865,
p. 205.
*(3) Mitford's History of Greece, vol. i., p. 282. It appears from a
passage in Xenophon's Memorabilia, B. ii. 4 (to which my attention has
been called by the Rev. J. N. Hoare), that it was a well recognised
principle with the Greeks, that men ought to select their wives with a
view to the health and vigour of their children. The Grecian poet,
Theognis, who lived 550 B. C., clearly saw how important selection, if
carefully applied, would be for the improvement of mankind. He saw,
likewise, that wealth often checks the proper action of sexual
selection. He thus writes:
With kine and horses, Kurnus! we proceed
By reasonable rules, and choose a breed
For profit and increase at any price:
Of a sound stock, without defect or vice.
But, in the daily matches that we make,
The price is everything: for money's sake,
Men marry: women are in marriage given
The churl or ruffian, that in wealth has thriven,
May match his offspring with the proudest race:
Thus everything is mix'd, noble and base!
If then in outward manner, form, and mind,
You find us a degraded, motley kind,
Wonder no more, my friend! the cause is plain,
And to lament the consequence is vain.
(The Works of J. Hookham Frere, vol. ii., 1872, p. 334.)
If we consider all the races of man as forming a single species, his
range is enormous; but some separate races, as the Americans and
Polynesians, have very wide ranges. It is a well-known law that
widely-ranging species are much more variable than species with
restricted ranges; and the variability of man may with more truth be
compared with that of widely-ranging species, than with that of
domesticated animals.
Not only does variability appear to be induced in man and the
lower animals by the same general causes, but in both the same parts
of the body are effected in a closely analogous manner. This has
been proved in such full detail by Godron and Quatrefages, that I need
here only refer to their works.* Monstrosities, which graduate into
slight variations, are likewise so similar in man and the lower
animals, that the same classification and the same terms can be used
for both, as has been shewn by Isidore Geoffroy St-Hilaire.*(2) In
my work on the variation of domestic animals, I have attempted to
arrange in a rude fashion the laws of variation under the following
heads:- The direct and definite action of changed conditions, as
exhibited by all or nearly all the individuals of the same species,
varying in the same manner under the same circumstances. The effects
of the long-continued use or disuse of parts. The cohesion of
homologous parts. The variability of multiple parts. Compensation of
growth; but of this law I have found no good instance in the case of
man. The effects of the mechanical pressure of one part on another; as
of the pelvis on the cranium of the infant in the womb. Arrests of
development, leading to the diminution or suppression of parts. The
reappearance of long-lost characters through reversion. And lastly,
correlated variation. All these so-called laws apply equally to man
and the lower animals; and most of them even to plants. It would be
superfluous here to discuss all of them;*(3) but several are so
important, that they must be treated at considerable length.
* Godron, De l'Espece, 1859, tom. ii., livre 3. Quatrefages, Unite
de l'Espece Humaine, 1861. Also Lectures on Anthropology, given in the
Revue des Cours Scientifiques, 1866-1868.
*(2) Hist. Gen. et Part. des Anomalies de l'Organisation, tom. i.,
1832.
*(3) I have fully discussed these laws in my Variation of Animals
and Plants under Domestication, vol. ii., chaps. xxii. and xxiii. M.
J. P. Durand has lately (1868) published a valuable essay, De
l'Influence des Milieux, &c. He lays much stress, in the case of
plants, on the nature of the soil.
The Direct and Definite Action of Changed Conditions.- This is a
most perplexing subject. It cannot be denied that changed conditions
produce some, and occasionally a considerable effect, on organisms
of all kinds; and it seems at first probable that if sufficient time
were allowed this would be the invariable result. But I have failed to
obtain clear evidence in favour of this conclusion; and valid
reasons may be urged on the other side, at least as far as the
innumerable structures are concerned, which are adapted for special
ends. There can, however, be no doubt that changed conditions induce
an almost indefinite amount of fluctuating variability, by which the
whole organisation is rendered in some degree plastic.
In the United States, above 1,000,000 soldiers, who served in the
late war, were measured, and the States in which they were born and
reared were recorded.* From this astonishing number of observations it
is proved that local influences of some kind act directly on
stature; and we further learn that "the State where the physical
growth has in great measure taken place, and the State of birth, which
indicates the ancestry, seem to exert a marked influence on the
stature." For instance, it is established, "that residence in the
Western States, during the years of growth, tends to produce
increase of stature." On the other hand, it is certain that with
sailors, their life delays growth, as shewn "by the great difference
between the statures of soldiers and sailors at the ages of
seventeen and eighteen years." Mr. B. A. Gould endeavoured to
ascertain the nature of the influences which thus act on stature;
but he arrived only at negative results, namely that they did not
relate to climate, the elevation of the land, soil, nor even "in any
controlling degree" to the abundance or the need of the comforts of
life. This latter conclusion is directly opposed to that arrived at
by, Villerme, from the statisties of the height of the conscripts in
different parts of France. When we compare the differences in
stature between the Polynesian chiefs and the lower orders within
the same islands, or between the inhabitants of the fertile volcanic
and low barren coral islands of the same ocean,*(2) or again between
the Fuegians on the eastern and western shores of their country, where
the means of subsistence are very different, it is scarcely possible
to avoid the conclusion that better food and greater comfort do
influence stature. But the preceding statements shew how difficult
it is to arrive at any precise result. Dr. Beddoe has lately proved
that, with the inhabitants of Britain, residence in towns and
certain occupations have a deteriorating influence on height; and he
infers that the result is to a certain extent inherited, as is
likewise the case in the United States. Dr. Beddoe further believes
that wherever a "race attains its maximum of physical development,
it rises highest in energy and moral vigour."*(3)
* Investigations in Military and Anthrop. Statistics, &c., 1869,
by B. A. Gould, pp. 93, 107, 126, 131, 134.
*(2) For the Polynesians, see Prichard's Physical History of
Mankind, vol. v., 1847, pp. 145, 283. Also Godron, De l'Espece, tom.
ii., p. 289. There is also a remarkable difference in appearance
between the closely-allied Hindoos inhabiting the Upper Ganges and
Bengal; see Elphinstone's History of India, vol. i., p. 324.
*(3) Memoirs, Anthropological Society, vol. iii., 1867-69, pp.
561, 565, 567.
Whether external conditions produce any other direct effect on man is
not known. It might have been expected that differences of climate
would have had a marked influence, inasmuch as the lungs and kidneys
are brought into activity under a low temperature, and the liver and
skin under a high one.* It was formerly thought that the colour of the
skin and the character of the hair were determined by light or heat;
and although it can hardly be denied that some effect is thus
produced, almost all observers now agree that the effect has been very
small, even after exposure during many ages. But this subject will
be more properly discussed when we treat of the different races of
mankind. With our domestic animals there are grounds for believing
that cold and damp directly affect the growth of the hair; but I
have not met with any evidence on this head in the case of man.
* Dr. Brakenridge, "Theory of Diathesis," Medical Times, June 19 and
July 17, 1869.
Effects of the increased Use and Disuse of Parts.- It is well
known that use strengthens the muscles in the individual, and complete
disuse, or the destruction of the proper nerve, weakens them. When the
eye is destroyed, the optic nerve often becomes atrophied. When an
artery is tied, the lateral channels increase not only in diameter,
but in the thickness and strength of their coats. When one kidney
ceases to act from disease, the other increases in size, and does
double work. Bones increase not only in thickness, but in length, from
carrying a greater weight.* Different occupations, habitually
followed, lead to changed proportions in various parts of the body.
Thus it was ascertained by the United States Commission*(2) that the
legs of the sailors employed in the late war were longer by 0.217 of
an inch than those of the soldiers, though the sailors were on an
average shorter men; whilst their arms were shorter by 1.09 of an
inch, and therefore, out of proportion, shorter in relation to their
lesser height. This shortness of the arms is apparently due to their
greater use, and is an unexpected result: but sailors chiefly use
their arms in pulling, and not in supporting weights. With sailors,
the girth of the neck and the depth of the instep are greater,
whilst the circumference of the chest, waist, and hips is less, than
in soldiers.
* I have given authorities for these several statements in my
Variation of Animals and Plants under Domestication, vol. ii., pp.
297-300. Dr. Jaeger, "Uber das Langenwachsthum der Knochen," Jenaische
Zeitschrift, B. v., Heft. i.
*(2) Investigations, &c., by B. A. Gould, 1869, p. 288.
Whether the several foregoing modifications would become hereditary,
if the same habits of life were followed during many generations, is
not known, but it is probable. Rengger* attributes the thin legs and
thick arms of the Payaguas Indians to successive generations having
passed nearly their whole lives in canoes, with their lower
extremities motionless. Other writers have come to a similar
conclusion in analogous cases. According to Cranz,*(2) who lived for a
long time with the Esquimaux, "The natives believe that ingenuity
and dexterity in seal-catching (their highest art and virtue) is
hereditary; there is is really something in it, for the son of a
celebrated seal-catcher will distinguish himself, though he lost his
father in childhood." But in this case it is mental aptitude, quite as
much as bodily structure, which appears to be inherited. It is
asserted that the hands of English labourers are at birth larger
than those of the gentry.*(3) From the correlation which exists, at
least in some cases,*(4) between the development of the extremities
and of the jaws, it is possible that in those classes which do not
labour much with their hands and feet, the jaws would be reduced in
size from this cause. That they are generally smaller in refined and
civilized men than in hard-working men or savages, is certain. But
with savages, as Mr. Herbert Spencer*(5) has remarked, the greater use
of the jaws in chewing coarse, uncooked food, would act in a direct
manner on the masticatory muscles, and on the bones to which they
are attached. In infants, long before birth, the skin on the soles
of the feet is thicker than on any other part of the body;*(6) and
it can hardly be doubted that this is due to the inherited effects
of pressure during a long series of generations.
* Saugethiere von Paraguay, 1830, s. 4.
*(2) History of Greenland, Eng. translat., 1767, vol. i., p. 230
*(3) Intermarriage, by Alex. Walker, 1838, p. 377.
*(4) The Variation of Animals and Plants under Domestication, vol.
i., p. 173.
*(5) Principles of Biology, vol. i., p. 455.
*(6) Paget, Lectures on Surgical Pathology, vol. ii, 1853, p. 209.
It is familiar to every one that watchmakers and engravers are
liable to be short-sighted, whilst men living much out of doors, and
especially savages, are generally long-sighted.* Short-sight and
long-sight certainly tend to be inherited.*(2) The inferiority of
Europeans, in comparison with savages, in eyesight and in the other
senses, is no doubt the accumulated and transmitted effect of lessened
use during many generations; for Rengger*(3) states that he has
repeatedly observed Europeans, who had been brought up and spent their
whole lives with the wild Indians, who nevertheless did not equal them
in the sharpness of their senses. The same naturalist observes that
the cavities in the skull for the reception of the several
sense-organs are larger in the American aborigines than in
Europeans; and this probably indicates a corresponding difference in
the dimensions of the organs themselves. Blumenbach has also
remarked on the large size of the nasal cavities in the skulls of
the American aborigines, and connects this fact with their
remarkably acute power of smell. The Mongolians of the plains of
northern Asia, according to Pallas, have wonderfully perfect senses;
and Prichard believes that the great breadth of their skulls across
the zygomas follows from their highly-developed sense organs.*(4)
* It is a singular and unexpected fact that sailors are inferior
to landsmen in their mean distance of distinct vision. Dr. B. A. Gould
(Sanitary Memoirs of the War of the Rebellion, 1869 p. 530), has
proved this to be the case; and he accounts for it by the ordinary
range of vision in sailors being "restricted to the length of the
vessel and the height of the masts."
*(2) The Variation of Animal and Plants under Domestication, vol.
i., p. 8.
*(3) Saugethiere von Paraguay, s. 8, 10. I have had good
opportunities for observing the extraordinary power of eyesight in the
Fuegians. See also Lawrence (Lectures on Physiology, &c., 1822, p.
404) on this same subject. M. Giraud-Teulon has recently collected
(Revue des Cours Scientifiques, 1870, p. 625) a large and valuable
body of evidence proving that the cause of short-sight, "C'est le
travail assidu, de pres."
*(4) Prichard, Physical History of Mankind, on the authority of
Blumenbach, vol. i., 1841, p. 311; for the statement by Pallas, vol.
iv., 1844, p. 407.
The Quechua Indians inhabit the lofty plateaux of Peru; and Alcide
d'Orbigny states* that, from continually breathing a highly rarefied
atmosphere, they have acquired chests and lungs of extraordinary
dimensions. The cells, also, of the lungs are larger and more numerous
than in Europeans. These observations have been doubted, but Mr. D.
Forbes carefully measured many Aymaras, an allied race, living at
the height of between 10,000 and 15,000 feet; and he informs me*(2)
that they differ conspicuously from the men of all other races seen by
him in the circumference and length of their bodies. In his table of
measurements, the stature of each man is taken at 1000, and the
other measurements are reduced to this standard. It is here seen
that the extended arms of the Aymaras are shorter than those of
Europeans, and much shorter than those of Negroes. The legs are
likewise shorter; and they present this remarkable peculiarity, that
in every Aymara measured, the femur is actually shorter than the
tibia. On an average, the length of the femur to that of the tibia
is as 211 to 252; whilst in two Europeans, measured at the same
time, the femora to the tibiae were as 244 to 230; and in three
Negroes as 258 to 241. The humerus is likewise shorter relatively to
the forearm. This shortening of that part of the limb which is nearest
to the body, appears to be, as suggested to me by Mr. Forbes, a case
of compensation in relation with the greatly increased length of the
trunk. The Aymaras present some other singular points of structure,
for instance, the very small projection of the heel.
* Quoted by Prichard, Researches into the Physical History of
Mankind, vol. v., p. 463.
*(2) Mr. Forbes' valuable paper is now published in the Journal of
the Ethnological Society of London, new series, vol. ii., 1870, p.
193.
These men are so thoroughly acclimatised to their cold and lofty
abode, that when formerly carried down by Spaniards to the low eastern
plains, and when now tempted down by high wages to the
gold-washings, they suffer a frightful rate of mortality. Nevertheless
Mr. Forbes found a few pure families which had survived during two
generations: and he observed that they still inherited their
characteristic peculiarities. But it was manifest, even without
measurement, that these peculiarities had all decreased; and on
measurement, their bodies were found not to be so much elongated as
those of the men on the high plateau; whilst their femora had become
somewhat lengthened, as had their tibiae, although in a less degree.
The actual measurements may be seen by consulting Mr. Forbes's memoir.
From these observations, there can, I think, be no doubt that
residence during many generations at a great elevation tends, both
directly and indirectly, to induce inherited modifications in the
proportions of the body.*
* Dr. Wilckens (Landwirthschaft. Wochenblatt, No. 10, 1869) has
lately published an interesting essay shewing how domestic animals,
which live in mountainous regions, have their frames modified.
Although man may not have been much modified during the latter
stages of his existence through the increased or decreased use of
parts, the facts now given shew that his liability in this respect has
not been lost; and we positively know that the same law holds good
with the lower animals. Consequently we may infer that when at a
remote epoch the progenitors of man were in a transitional state,
and were changing from quadrupeds into bipeds, natural selection would
probably have been greatly aided by the inherited effects of the
increased or diminished use of the different parts of the body.
Arrests of Development.- There is a difference between arrested
development and arrested growth, for parts in the former state
continue to grow whilst still retaining their early condition. Various
monstrosities come under this head; and some, as a cleft palate, are
known to be occasionally inherited. It will suffice for our purpose to
refer to the arrested brain-development of microcephalous idiots, as
described in Vogt's memoir.* Their skulls are smaller, and the
convolutions of the brain are less complex than in normal men. The
frontal sinus, or the projection over the eyebrows, is largely
developed, and the jaws are prognathous to an "effrayant" degree; so
that these idiots somewhat resemble the lower types of mankind.
Their intelligence, and most of their mental faculties, are
extremely feeble. They cannot acquire the power of speech, and are
wholly incapable of prolonged attention, but are much given to
imitation. They are strong and remarkably active, continually
gambolling and jumping about, and making grimaces. They often ascend
stairs on all-fours; and are curiously fond of climbing up furniture
or trees. We are thus reminded of the delight shewn by almost all boys
in climbing trees; and this again reminds us how lambs and kids,
originally alpine animals, delight to frisk on any hillock, however
small. Idiots also resemble the lower animals in some other
respects; thus several cases are recorded of their carefully
smelling every mouthful of food before eating it. One idiot is
described as often using his mouth in aid of his hands, whilst hunting
for lice. They are often filthy in their habits, and have no sense
of decency; and several cases have been published of their bodies
being remarkably hairy.*(2)
* Memoires sur les Microcephales, 1867, pp. 50, 125, 169, 171,
184-198.
*(2) Prof. Laycock sums up the character of brute-like idiots by
calling them theroid; Journal of Mental Science,, July, 1863. Dr.
Scott (The Deaf and Dumb, 2nd ed., 1870, p. 10) has often observed the
imbeciles smelling their food. See, on this same subject, and on the
hairiness of idiots, Dr. Maudsley, Body and Mind, 1870, pp. 46-51.
Pinel has also given a striking case of hairiness in an idiot.
Reversion.- Many of the cases to be here given, might have been
introduced under the last heading. When a structure is arrested in its
development, but still continues growing, until it closely resembles a
corresponding structure in some lower and adult member of the same
group, it may in one sense be considered as a case of reversion. The
lower members in a group give us some idea how the common progenitor
was probably constructed; and it is hardly credible that a complex
part, arrested at an early phase of embryonic development, should go
on growing so as ultimately to perform its proper function, unless
it had acquired such power during some earlier state of existence,
when the present exceptional or arrested structure was normal. The
simple brain of a microcephalous idiot, in as far as it resembles that
of an ape' may in this sense be said to offer a case of reversion.*
There are other cases which come more strictly under our present
head of reversion. Certain structures, regularly occurring in the
lower members of the group to which man belongs, occasionally make
their appearance in him, though not found in the normal human
embryo; or, if normally present in the human embryo, they become
abnormally developed, although in a manner which is normal in the
lower members of the group. These remarks will be rendered clearer
by the following illustrations.
* In my Variation of Animals under Domestication (vol. ii., p.
57), I attributed the not very rare cases of supernumerary mammae in
women to reversion. I was led to this as a probable conclusion, by the
additional mammae being generally placed symmetrically on the
breast; and more especially from one case, in which a single efficient
mamma occurred in the inguinal region of a woman, the daughter of
another woman with supernumerary mammae. But I now find (see, for
instance, Prof. Preyer, Der Kampf um das Dasein, 1869, s. 45) that
mammae erraticae, occur in other situations, as on the back, in the
armpit, and on the thigh; the mammae in this latter instance having
given so much milk that the child was thus nourished. The
probability that the additional mammae are due to reversion is thus
much weakened; nevertheless, it still seems to me probable, because
two pairs are often found symmetrically on the breast; and of this I
myself have received information in several cases. It is well known
that some lemurs normally have two pairs of mammae on the breast. Five
cases have been recorded of the presence of more than a pair of mammee
(of course rudimentary) in the male sex of mankind; see Journal of
Anat. and Physiology, 1872, p. 56, for a case given by Dr. Handyside
in which two brothers exhibited this peculiarity; see also a paper
by Dr. Bartels, in Reichert's and du Bois-Reymond's Archiv., 1872,
p. 304. In one of the cases alluded to by Dr. Bartels, a man bore five
mammae, one being medial and placed above the navel; Meckel von
Hemsbach thinks that this latter case is illustrated by a medial mamma
occurring in certain Cheiroptera. On the whole, we may well doubt if
additional mammae would ever have been developed in both sexes of
mankind, had not his early progenitors been provided with more than
a single pair.
In the above work (vol. ii., p. 12), I also attributed, though
with much hesitation, the frequent cases of polydactylism in men and
various animals to reversion. I was partly led to this through Prof.
Owen's statement, that some of the Ichthyopterygia possesses more than
five digits, and therefore, as I supposed, had retained a primordial
condition; but Prof. Gegenbaur (Jenaische Zeitschrift, B. v., Heft
3, s. 341), disputes Owen's conclusion. On the other hand, according
to the opinion lately advanced by Dr. Gunther, on the paddle of
Ceratodus, which is provided with articulated bony rays on both
sides of a central chain of bones, there seems no great difficulty
in admitting that six or more digits on one side, or on both sides,
might reappear through reversion. I am informed by Dr. Zouteveen
that there is a case on record of a man having twenty-four fingers and
twenty-four toes! I was chiefly led to the conclusion that the
presence of supernumerary digits might be due to reversion from the
fact that such digits, not only are strongly inherited, but, as I then
believed, had the power of regrowth after amputation, like the
normal digits of the lower Vertebrata. But I have explained in the
second edition of my Variation under Domestication why I now place
little reliance on the recorded cases of such regrowth. Nevertheless
it deserves notice, inasmuch as arrested development and reversion are
intimately related processes; that various structures in an
embryonic or arrested condition, such as a cleft palate, bifid uterus,
&c., are frequently accompanied by polydactylism. This has been
strongly insisted on by Meckel and Isidore Geoffroy St-Hilaire. But at
present it is the safest course to give up altogether the idea that
there is any relation between the development of supernumerary
digits and reversion to some lowly organized progenitor of man.
In various mammals the uterus graduates from a double organ with two
distinct orifices and two passages, as in the marsupials, into a
single organ, which is in no way double except from having a slight
internal fold, as in the higher apes and man. The rodents exhibit a
perfect series of gradations between these two extreme states. In
all mammals the uterus is developed from two simple primitive tubes,
the inferior portions of which form the cornua; and it is in the words
of Dr. Farre, "by the coalescence of the two cornua at their lower
extremities that the body of the uterus is formed in man; while in
those animals in which no middle portion or body exists, the cornua
remain ununited. As the development of the uterus proceeds, the two
cornua become gradually shorter, until at length they are lost, or, as
it were, absorbed into the body of the uterus." The angles of the
uterus are still produced into cornua, even in animals as high up in
the scale as the lower apes and lemurs.
Now in women, anomalous cases are not very infrequent, in which
the mature uterus is furnished with cornua, or is partially divided
into two organs; and such cases, according to Owen, repeat "the
grade of concentrative development," attained by certain rodents. Here
perhaps we have an instance of a simple arrest of embryonic
development, with subsequent growth and perfect functional
development; for either side of the partially double uterus is capable
of performing the proper office of gestation. In other and rarer
cases, two distinct uterine cavities are formed, each having its
proper orifice and passage.* No such stage is passed through during
the ordinary development of the embryo; and it is difficult to
believe, though perhaps not impossible, that the two simple, minute,
primitive tubes should know how (if such an expression may be used) to
grow into two distinct uteri, each with a well-constructed orifice,and
passage, and each furnished with numerous muscles, nerves, glands
and vessels, if they had not formerly passed through a similar
course of development, as in the case of existing marsupials. No one
will pretend that so perfect a structure as the abnormal double uterus
in woman could be the result of mere chance. But the principle of
reversion, by which a long-lost structure is called back into
existence, might serve as the guide for its full development, even
after the lapse of an enormous interval of time.
* See Dr. A. Farre's well-known article in the Cyclopaedia of
Anatomy and Physiology, vol. v., 1859, p. 642. Owen, Anatomy of
Vertebrates, vol. iii., 1868, p. 687. Professor Turner, in Edinburgh
Medical Journal, February, 1865.
Professor Canestrini, after discussing the foregoing and various
analogous cases, arrives at the same conclusion as that just given. He
adduces another instance, in the case of the malar bone,* which, in
some of the Quadrumana and other mammals, normally consists of two
portions. This is its condition in the human foetus when two months
old; and through arrested development, it sometimes remains thus in
man when adult, more especially in the lower prognathous races.
Hence Canestrini concludes that some ancient progenitor of man must
have had this bone normally divided into two portions, which
afterwards became fused together. In man the frontal bone consists
of a single piece, but in the embryo, and in children, and in almost
all the lower mammals, it consists of two pieces separated by a
distinct suture. This suture occasionally persists more or less
distinctly in man after maturity; and more frequently in ancient
than in recent crania, especially, as Canestrini has observed, in
those exhumed from the Drift, and belonging to the brachycephalic
type. Here again he comes to the same conclusion as in the analogous
case of the malar bones. In this, and other instances presently to
be given, the cause of ancient races approaching the lower animals
in certain characters more frequently than do the modern races,
appears to be, that the latter stand at a somewhat greater distance in
the long line of descent from their early semi-human progenitors.
* Annuario della Soc. dei Naturalisti, Modena, 1867, p. 83. Prof.
Canestrini gives extracts on this subject from various authorities.
Laurillard remarks, that as he has found a complete similarity in
the form, proportions, and connection of the two malar bones in
several human subjects and in certain apes, he cannot consider this
disposition of the parts as simply accidental. Another paper on this
same anomaly has been published by Dr. Saviotti in the Gazzetta
delle Cliniche, Turin, 1871, where he says that traces of the division
may be detected in about two per cent of adult skulls; he also remarks
that it more frequently occurs in prognathous skulls, not of the Aryan
race, than in others. See also G. Delorenzi on the same subject;
"Tre nuovi casi d'anomalia dell' osso malare," Torino, 1872. Also,
E. Morselli, "Sopra una rara anomalia dell' osso malare," Modena,
1872. Still more recently Gruber has written a pamphlet on the
division of this bone. I give these references because a reviewer,
without any grounds or scruples, has thrown doubts on my statements.
Various other anomalies in man, more or less analogous to the
foregoing, have been advanced by different authors, as cases of
reversion; but these seem not a little doubtful, for we have to
descend extremely low in the mammalian series, before we find such
structures normally present.*
* A whole series of cases is given by Isidore Geoffroy St-Hilaire,
Hist. des Anomalies, tom, iii, p. 437. A reviewer (Journal of
Anatomy and Physiology, 1871, p. 366) blames me much for not having
discussed the numerous cases, which have been recorded, of various
parts arrested in their development. He says that, according to my
theory, "every transient condition of an organ, during its
development, is not only a means to an end, but once was an end in
itself." This does not seem to me necessarily to hold good. Why should
not variations occur during an early period of development, having
no relation to reversion; yet such variations might be preserved and
accumulated, if in any way serviceable, for instance, in shortening
and simplifying the course of development? And again, why should not
injurious abnormalities, such as atrophied or hypertrophied parts,
which have no relation to a former state of existence, occur at an
early period, as well as during maturity?
In man, the canine teeth are perfectly efficient instruments for
mastication. But their true canine character, as Owen* remarks, "is
indicated by the conical form of the crown, which terminates in an
obtuse point, is convex outward and flat or sub-concave within, at the
base of which surface there is a feeble prominence. The conical form
is best expressed in the Melanian races, especially the Australian.
The canine is more deeply implanted, and by a stronger fang than the
incisors." Nevertheless, this tooth no longer serves man as a
special weapon for tearing his enemies or prey; it may, therefore,
as far as its proper function is concerned, be considered as
rudimentary. In every large collection of human skulls some may be
found, as Haeckel*(2) observes, with the canine teeth projecting
considerably beyond the others in the same manner as in the
anthropomorphous apes, but in a less degree. In these cases, open
spaces between the teeth in the one jaw are left for the reception
of the canines of the opposite jaw. An inter-space of this kind in a
Kaffir skull, figured by Wagner, is surprisingly wide.*(3) Considering
how few are the ancient skulls which have been examined, compared to
recent skulls, it is an interesting fact that in at least three
cases the canines project largely; and in the Naulette jaw they are
spoken of as enourmous.*(4)
* Anatomy of Vertebrates, vol. iii., 1868, p. 323.
*(2) Generelle Morphologie, 1866, B. ii., s. clv.
*(3) Carl Vogt's Lectures on Man, Eng. translat., 1864, p. 151.
*(4) C. Carter Blake, on a jaw from La Naulette, Anthropological
Review, 1867, p. 295. Schaaffhausen, ibid., 1868, p. 426.
Of the anthropomorphous apes the males alone have their canines
fully developed; but in the female gorilla, and in a less degree in
the female orang, these teeth project considerably beyond the
others; therefore the fact, of which I have been assured, that women
sometimes have considerably projecting canines, is no serious
objection to the belief that their occasional great development in man
is a case of reversion to an ape-like progenitor. He who rejects
with scorn the belief that the shape of his own canines, and their
occasional great development in other men, are due to our early
forefathers having been provided with these formidable weapons, will
probably reveal, by sneering, the line of his descent. For though he
no longer intends, nor has the power, to use these teeth as weapons,
he will unconsciously retract his "snarling muscles" (thus named by
Sir C. Bell),* so as to expose them ready for action, like a dog
prepared to fight.
* The Anatomy of Expression, 1844, pp. 110, 131.
Many muscles are occasionally developed in man, which are proper
to the Quadrumana or other mammals. Professor Vlacovich* examined
forty male subjects, and found a muscle, called by him the
ischio-pubic, in nineteen of them; in three others there was a
ligament which represented this muscle; and in the remaining
eighteen no trace of it. In only two out of thirty female subjects was
this muscle developed on both sides, but in three others the
rudimentary ligament was present. This muscle, therefore, appears to
be much more common in the male than in the female sex; and on the
belief in the descent of man from some lower form, the fact is
intelligible; for it has been detected in several of the lower
animals, and in all of these it serves exclusively to aid the male
in the act of reproduction.
* Quoted by Prof. Canestrini in the Annuario, della Soc. dei
Naturalisti, 1867, p. 90.
Mr. J. Wood, in his valuable series of papers,* has minutely
described a vast number of muscular variations in man, which
resemble normal structures in the lower animals. The muscles which
closely resemble those regularly present in our nearest allies, the
Quadrumans, are too numerous to be here even specified. In a single
male subject, having a strong bodily frame, and well-formed skull,
no less than seven muscular variations were observed, all of which
plainly represented muscles proper to various kinds of apes. This man,
for instance, had on both sides of his neck a true and powerful
"levator claviculae," such as is found in all kinds of apes, and which
is said to occur in about one out of sixty human subjects.*(2)
Again, this man had "a special abductor of the metatarsal bone of
the fifth digit, such as Professor Huxley and Mr. Flower have shewn to
exist uniformly in the higher and lower apes." I will give only two
additional cases; the acromio-basilar muscle is found in all mammals
below man, and seems to be correlated with a quadrupedal gait,*(3) and
it occurs in about one out of sixty human subjects. In the lower
extremities Mr. Bradley*(4) found an abductor ossis metatarsi quinti
in both feet of man; this muscle had not up to that time been recorded
in mankind, but is always present in the anthropomorphous apes. The
muscles of the hands and arms- parts which are so eminently
characteristic of man- are extremely liable to vary, so as to resemble
the corresponding muscles in the lower animals.*(5) Such
resemblances are either perfect or imperfect; yet in the latter case
they are manifestly of a transitional nature. Certain variations are
more common in man, and others in woman, without our being able to
assign any reason. Mr. Wood, after describing numerous variations,
makes the following pregnant remark. "Notable departures from the
ordinary type of muscular structures run in grooves or directions,
which must be taken to indicate some unknown factor, of much
importance to a comprehensive knowledge of general and scientific
anatomy."*(6)
* These papers deserve careful study by any one who desires to learn
how frequently our muscles vary, and in varying come to resemble those
of the Quadrumana. The following references relate to the few points
touched on in my text: Proc. Royal Soc., vol. xiv., 1865, pp. 379-384;
vol. xv., 1866, pp. 241, 242; vol. xv., 1867, p. 544; vol. xvi., 1868,
p. 524. I may here add that Dr. Murie and Mr. St. George Mivart have
shewn in their Memoir on the Lemuroidea (Transactions, Zoological
Society, vol. vii., 1869, p. 96), how extraordinarily variable some of
the muscles are in these animals, the lowest members of the
primates. Gradations, also, in the muscles leading to structures found
in animals still lower in the scale, are numerous in the Lemuroidea.
*(2) See also Prof. Macalister in Proceedings, Royal Irish
Academy, vol. x., 1868, p. 124.
*(3) Mr. Champneys in Journal of Anatomy and Physiology, Nov., 1871,
p. 178.
*(4) Ibid., May, 1872, p. 421.
*(5) Prof. Macalister (ibid., p. 121) has tabulated his
observations, and finds that muscular abnormalities are most
frequent in the fore-arms, secondly, in the face, thirdly, in the
foot, &c.
*(6) The Rev. Dr. Haughton, after giving (Proc. R. Irish Academy,
June 27, 1864, p. 715) a remarkable case of variation in the human
flexor pollicis longus, adds, "This remarkable example shows that
man may sometimes possess the arrangement of tendons of thumb and
fingers characteristic of the macaque; but whether such a case
should be regarded as a macaque passing upwards into a man, or a man
passing downwards into a macaque, or as a congenital freak of
nature, I cannot undertake to say." It is satisfactory to hear so
capable an anatomist, and so embittered an opponent of evolutionism,
admitting even the possibility of either of his first propositions.
Prof. Macalister has also described (Proceedings Royal Irish
Academy, vol. x., 1864, p. 138) variations in the flexor pollicis
longus, remarkable from their relations to the same muscle in the
Quadrumana.
That this unknown factor is reversion to a former state of existence
may be admitted as in the highest degree probable.* It is quite
incredible that a man should through mere accident abnormally resemble
certain apes in no less than seven of his muscles, if there had been
no genetic connection between them. On the other hand, if man is
descended from some ape-like creature, no valid reason can be assigned
why certain muscles should not suddenly reappear after an interval
of many thousand generations, in the same manner as with horses,
asses, and mules, dark-coloured stripes suddenly reappear on the legs,
and shoulders, after an interval of hundreds, or more probably of
thousands of generations.
* Since the first edition of this book appeared, Mr. Wood has
published another memoir in the Philosophical Transactions, 1870, p.
83, on the varieties of the muscles of the human neck, shoulder, and
chest. He here shows how extremely variable these muscles are, and how
often and how closely the variations resemble the normal muscles of
the lower animals. He sums up by remarking, "It will be enough for
my purpose if I have succeeded in shewing the more important forms
which, when occurring as varieties in the human subject, tend to
exhibit in a sufficiently marked manner what may be considered as
proofs and examples of the Darwinian principle of reversion, or law of
inheritance, in this department of anatomical science."
These various cases of reversion are so closely related to those
of rudimentary organs given in the first chapter, that many of them
might have been indifferently introduced either there or here. Thus
a human uterus furnished with cornua may be said to represent, in a
rudimentary condition, the same organ in its normal state in certain
mammals. Some parts which are rudimentary in man, as the os coccyx
in both sexes, and the mammae in the male sex, are always present;
whilst others, such as the supracondyloid foramen, only occasionally
appear, and therefore might have been introduced under the head of
reversion. These several reversionary structures, as well as the
strictly rudimentary ones, reveal the descent of man from some lower
form in an unmistakable manner.
Correlated Variation.- In man, as in the lower animals, many
structures are so intimately related, that when one part varies so
does another, without our being able, in most cases, to assign any
reason. We cannot say whether the one part governs the other, or
whether both are governed by some earlier developed part. Various
monstrosities, as I. Geoffroy repeatedly insists, are thus
intimately connected. Homologous structures are particularly liable to
change together, as we see on the opposite sides of the body, and in
the upper and lower extremities. Meckel long ago remarked, that when
the muscles of the arm depart from their proper type, they almost
always imitate those of the leg; and so, conversely, with the
muscles of the legs. The organs of sight and hearing, the teeth and
hair, the colour of the skin and of the hair, colour and constitution,
are more or less correlated.* Professor Schaaffhausen first drew
attention to the relation apparently existing between a muscular frame
and the strongly-pronounced supra-orbital ridges, which are so
characteristic of the lower races of man.
* The authorities for these several statements are given in my
Variation of Animals and Plants under Domestication, vol. ii., pp.
320-335.
Besides the variations which can be grouped with more or less
probability under the foregoing heads, there is a large class of
variations which may be provisionally called spontaneous, for to our
ignorance they appear to arise without any exciting cause. It can,
however, be shewn that such variations, whether consisting of slight
individual differences, or of strongly-marked and abrupt deviations of
structure, depend much more on the constitution of the organism than
on the nature of the conditions to which it has been subjected.*
* This whole subject has been discussed in chap. xxiii., vol. ii. of
my Variation of Animals and Plants under Domestication.
Rate of Increase.- Civilised populations have been known under
favourable conditions, as in the United States, to double their
numbers in twenty-five years; and, according to a calculation, by
Euler, this might occur in a little over twelve years.* At the
former rate, the present population of the United States (thirty
millions), would in 657 years cover the whole terraqueous globe so
thickly, that four men would have to stand on each square yard of
surface. The primary or fundamental check to the continued increase of
man is the difficulty of gaining subsistence, and of living in
comfort. We may infer that this is the case from what we see, for
instance, in the United States, where subsistence is easy, and there
is plenty of room. If such means were suddenly doubled in Great
Britain, our number would be quickly doubled. With civilised nations
this primary check acts chiefly by restraining marriages. The
greater death-rate of infants in the poorest classes is also very
important; as well as the greater mortality, from various diseases, of
the inhabitants of crowded and miserable houses, at all ages. The
effects of severe epidemics and wars are soon counterbalanced, and
more than counterbalanced, in nations placed under favourable
conditions. Emigration also comes in aid as a temporary check, but,
with the extremely poor classes, not to any great extent.
* See the ever memorable Essay on the Principle of Population, by
the Rev. T. Malthus, vol. i. 1826. pp. 6, 517.
There is great reason to suspect, as Malthus has remarked, that
the reproductive power is actually less in barbarous, than in
civilised races. We know nothing positively on this head, for with
savages no census has been taken; but from the concurrent testimony of
missionaries, and of others who have long resided with such people, it
appears that their families are usually small, and large ones rare.
This may be partly accounted for, as it is believed, by the women
suckling their infants during a long time; but it is highly probable
that savages, who often suffer much hardships, and who do not obtain
so much nutritious food as civilised men, would be actually less
prolific. I have shewn in a former work,* that all our domesticated
quadrupeds and birds, and all our cultivated plants, are more
fertile than the corresponding species in a state of nature. It is
no valid objection to this conclusion that animals suddenly supplied
with an excess of food, or when grown very fat; and that most plants
on sudden removal from very poor to very rich soil, are rendered
more or less sterile. We might, therefore, expect that civilised
men, who in one sense are highly domesticated, would be more
prolific than wild men. It is also probable that the increased
fertility of civilised nations would become, as with our domestic
animals, an inherited character: it is at least known that with
mankind a tendency to produce twins runs in families.*(2)
* Variation of Animals and Plants under Domestication, vol ii.,
pp. 111-113, 163.
*(2) Mr. Sedgwick, British and Foreign Medico-Chirurgical Review,
July, 1863, p. 170.
Notwithstanding that savages appear to be less prolific than
civilised people, they would no doubt rapidly increase if their
numbers were not by some means rigidly kept down. The Santali, or
hill-tribes of India, have recently afforded a good illustration of
this fact; for, as shewn by Mr. Hunter,* they have increased at an
extraordinary rate since vaccination has been introduced, other
pestilences mitigated, and war sternly repressed. This increase,
however, would not have been possible had not these rude people spread
into the adjoining districts, and worked for hire. Savages almost
always marry; yet there is some prudential restraint, for they do
not commonly marry at the earliest possible age. The young men are
often required to shew that they can support a wife; and they
generally have first to earn the price with which to purchase her from
her parents. With savages the difficulty of obtaining subsistence
occasionally limits their number in a much more direct manner than
with civilised people, for all tribes periodically suffer from
severe famines. At such times savages are forced to devour much bad
food, and their health can hardly fail to be injured. Many accounts
have been published of their protruding stomachs and emaciated limbs
after and during famines. They are then, also, compelled to wander
much, and, as I was assured in Australia, their infants perish in
large numbers. As famines are periodical, depending chiefly on extreme
seasons, all tribes must fluctuate in number. They cannot steadily and
regularly increase, as there is no artificial increase in the supply
of food. Savages, when hard pressed, encroach on each other's
territories, and war is the result; but they are indeed almost
always at war with their neighbours. They are liable to many accidents
on land and water in their search for food; and in some countries they
suffer much from the larger beasts of prey. Even in India, districts
have been depopulated by the ravages of tigers.
* The Animals of Rural Bengal, by W. W. Hunter, 1868, p. 259.
Malthus has discussed these several checks, but he does not lay
stress enough on what is probably the most important of all, namely
infanticide, especially of female infants and the habit of procuring
abortion. These practices now prevail in many quarters of the world;
and infanticide seems formerly to have prevailed, as Mr. M'Lennan* has
shewn on a still more extensive scale. These practices appear to
have originated in savages recognising the difficulty, or rather the
impossibility of supporting all the infants that are born.
Licentiousness may also be added to the foregoing checks; but this
does not follow from failing means of subsistence; though there is
reason to believe that in some cases (as in Japan) it has been
intentionally encouraged as a means of keeping down the population.
* Primitive Marriage, 1865.
If we look back to an extremely remote epoch, before man had arrived
at the dignity of manhood, he would have been guided more by
instinct and less by reason than are the lowest savages at the present
time. Our early semi-human progenitors would not have practised
infanticide or polyandry; for the instincts of the lower animals are
never so perverted* as to lead them regularly to destroy their own
offspring, or to be quite devoid of jealousy. There would have been no
prudential restraint from marriage, and the sexes would have freely
united at an early age. Hence the progenitors of man would have tended
to increase rapidly; but checks of some kind, either periodical or
constant, must have kept down their numbers, even more severely than
with existing savages. What the precise nature of these checks were,
we cannot say, any more than with most other animals. We know that
horses and cattle, which are not extremely prolific animals, when
first turned loose in South America, increased at an enormous rate.
The elephant, the slowest breeder of all known animals, would in a few
thousand years stock the whole world. The increase of every species of
monkey must be checked by some means; but not, as Brehm remarks, by
the attacks of beasts of prey. No one will assume that the actual
power of reproduction in the wild horses and cattle of America, was at
first in any sensible degree increased; or that, as each district
became fully stocked, this same power was diminished. No doubt, in
this case, and in all others, many checks concur, and different checks
under different circumstances; periodical dearths, depending on
unfavourable seasons, being probably the most important of all. So
it will have been with the early progenitors of man.
* A writer in the Spectator (March 12, 1871, p. 320) comments as
follows on this passage:- "Mr. Darwin finds himself compelled to
reintroduce a new doctrine of the fall of man. He shews that the
instincts of the higher animals are far nobler than the habits of
savage races of men, and he finds himself, therefore, compelled to
re-introduce,- in a form of the substantial orthodoxy of which he
appears to be quite unconscious,- and to introduce as a scientific
hypothesis the doctrine that man's gain of knowledge was the cause
of a temporary but long-enduring moral deterioration as indicated by
the many foul customs, especially as to marriage, of savage tribes.
What does the Jewish tradition of the moral degeneration of man
through his snatching at a knowledge forbidden him by his highest
instinct assert beyond this?"
Natural Selection.- We have now seen that man is variable in body
and mind; and that the variations are induced, either directly or
indirectly, by the same general causes, and obey the same general
laws, as with the lower animals. Man has spread widely over the face
of the earth, and must have been exposed, during his incessant
migration,* to the most diversified conditions. The inhabitants of
Tierra del Fuego, the Cape of Good Hope, and Tasmania in the one
hemisphere, and of the arctic regions in the other, must have passed
through many climates, and changed their habits many times, before
they reached their present homes.*(2) The early progenitors of man
must also have tended, like all other animals, to have increased
beyond their means of subsistence; they must, therefore,
occasionally have been exposed to a struggle for existence, and
consequently to the rigid law of natural selection. Beneficial
variations of all kinds will thus, either occasionally or
habitually, have been preserved and injurious ones eliminated. I do
not refer to strongly-marked deviations of structure, which occur only
at long intervals of time, but to mere individual differences. We
know, for instance, that the muscles of our hands and feet, which
determine our powers of movement, are liable, like those of the
lower animals,*(3) to incessant variability. If then the progenitors
of man inhabiting any district, especially one undergoing some
change in its conditions, were divided into two equal bodies, the
one half which included all the individuals best adapted by their
powers of movement for gaining subsistence, or for defending
themselves, would on an average survive in greater numbers, and
procreate more offspring than the other and less well endowed half.
* See some good remarks to this effect by W. Stanley Jevons, "A
Deduction from Darwin's Theory," Nature 1869, p. 231.
*(2) Latham, Man and his Migrations, 1851, p. 135.
*(3) Messrs. Murie and Mivart in their "Anatomy of the Lemuroidea"
(Transact. Zoolog. Soc., vol. vii., 1869, pp. 96-98) say, " some
muscles are so irregular in their distribution that they cannot be
well classed in any of the above groups." These muscles differ even on
the opposite sides of the same individual.
Man in the rudest state in which he now exists is the most
dominant animal that has ever appeared on this earth. He has spread
more widely than any other highly organised form: and all others
have yielded before him. He manifestly owes this immense superiority
to his intellectual faculties, to his social habits, which lead him to
aid and defend his fellows, and to his corporeal structure. The
supreme importance of these characters has been proved by the final
arbitrament of the battle for life. Through his powers of intellect,
articulate language has been evolved; and on this his wonderful
advancement has mainly depended. As Mr. Chauncey Wright remarks: "A
psychological analysis of the faculty of language shews, that even the
smallest proficiency in it might require more brain power than the
greatest proficiency in any other direction."* He has invented and
is able to use various weapons, tools, traps, &c., with which he
defends himself, kills or catches prey, and otherwise obtains food. He
has made rafts or canoes for fishing or crossing over to
neighbouring fertile islands. He has discovered the art of making
fire, by which hard and stringy roots can be rendered digestible,
and poisonous roots or herbs innocuous. This discovery of fire,
probably the greatest ever made by man, excepting language, dates from
before the dawn of history. These several inventions, by which man
in the rudest state has become so pre-eminent, are the direct
results of the development of his powers of observation, memory,
curiosity, imagination, and reason. I cannot, therefore, understand
how it is that Mr. Wallace*(2) maintains, that "natural selection
could only have endowed the savage with a brain a little superior to
that of an ape."
* "Limits of Natural Selection," North American Review, Oct.,
1870, p. 295.
*(2) Quarterly Review, April, 1869, p. 392. This subject is more
fully discussed in Mr. Wallace's Contributions to the Theory of
Natural Selection, 1870, in which all the essays referred to in this
work are re-published. The "Essay on Man," has been ably criticised by
Prof. Claparede, one of the most distinguished zoologists in Europe,
in an article published in the Bibliotheque Universelle, June, 1870.
The remark quoted in my text will surprise every one who has read
Mr. Wallace's celebrated paper on "The Origin of Human Races Deduced
from the Theory of Natural Selection," originally published in the
Anthropological Review, May, 1864, p. clviii. I cannot here resist
quoting a most just remark by Sir J. Lubbock (Prehistoric Times, 1865,
p. 479) in reference to this paper, namely, that Mr. Wallace, "with
characteristic unselfishness, ascribes it (i. e. the idea of natural
selection) unreservedly to Mr. Darwin, although, as is well known,
he struck out the idea independently, and published it, though not
with the same elaboration, at the same time."
Although the intellectual powers and social habits of man are of
paramount importance to him, we must not underrate the importance of
his bodily structure, to which subject the remainder of this chapter
will be devoted; the development of the intellectual and social or
moral faculties being discussed in a later chapter.
Even to hammer with precision is no easy matter, as every one who
has tried to learn carpentry will admit. To throw a stone with as true
an aim as a Fuegian in defending himself, or in killing birds,
requires the most consummate perfection in the correlated action of
the muscles of the hand, arm, and shoulder, and, further, a fine sense
of touch. In throwing a stone or spear, and in many other actions, a
man must stand firmly on his feet; and this again demands the
perfect co-adaptation of numerous muscles. To chip a flint into the
rudest tool, or to form a barbed spear or hook from a bone, demands
the use of a perfect hand; for, as a most capable judge, Mr.
Schoolcraft,* remarks, the shaping fragments of stone into knives,
lances, or arrow-heads, shews "extraordinary ability and long
practice." This is to a great extent proved by the fact that
primeval men practised a division of labour; each man did not
manufacture his own flint tools or rude pottery, but certain
individuals appear to have devoted themselves to such work, no doubt
receiving in exchange the produce of the chase. Archaeologists are
convinced that an enormous interval of time elapsed before our
ancestors thought of grinding chipped flints into smooth tools. One
can hardly doubt, that a man-like animal who possessed a hand and
arm sufficiently perfect to throw a stone with precision, or to form a
flint into a rude tool, could, with sufficient practice, as far as
mechanical skill alone is concerned, make almost anything which a
civilised man can make. The structure of the hand in this respect
may be compared with that of the vocal organs, which in the apes are
used for uttering various signal-cries, or, as in one genus, musical
cadences; but in man the closely similar vocal organs have become
adapted through the inherited effects of use for the utterance of
articulate language.
* Quoted by Mr. Lawson Tait in his "Law of Natural Selection,"
Dublin Quarterly Journal of Medical Science, Feb., 1869. Dr. Keller is
likewise quoted to the same effect.
Turning now to the nearest allies of men, and therefore to the
best representatives of our early progenitors, we find that the
hands of the Quadrumana are constructed on the same general pattern as
our own, but are far less perfectly adapted for diversified uses.
Their hands do not serve for locomotion so well as the feet of a
dog; as may be seen in such monkeys as the chimpanzee and orang, which
walk on the outer margins of the palms, or on the knuckles.* Their
hands, however, are admirably adapted for climbing trees. Monkeys
seize thin branches or ropes, with the thumb on one side and the
fingers and palm on the other, in the same manner as we do. They can
thus also lift rather large objects, such as the neck of a bottle,
to their mouths. Baboons turn over stones, and scratch up roots with
their hands. They seize nuts, insects, or other small objects with the
thumb in opposition to the fingers, and no doubt they thus extract
eggs and young from the nests of birds. American monkeys beat the wild
oranges on the branches until the rind is cracked, and then tear it
off with the fingers of the two hands. In a wild state they break open
hard fruits with stones. Other monkeys open mussel-shells with the two
thumbs. With their fingers they pull out thorns and burs, and hunt for
each other's parasites. They roll down stones, or throw them at
their enemies: nevertheless, they are clumsy in these various actions,
and, as I have myself seen, are quite unable to throw a stone with
precision.
* Owen, Anatomy of Vertebrates, vol. iii., p. 71.
It seems to me far from true that because "objects are grasped
clumsily" by monkeys, "a much less specialised organ of prehension"
would have served them* equally well with their present hands. On
the contrary, I see no reason to doubt that more perfectly constructed
hands would have been an advantage to them, provided that they were
not thus rendered less fitted for climbing trees. We may suspect
that a hand as perfect as that of man would have been
disadvantageous for climbing; for the most arboreal monkeys in the
world, namely, Ateles in America, Colobus in Africa, and Hylobates
in Asia, are either thumbless, or their toes partially cohere, so that
their limbs are converted into mere grasping hooks.*(2)
* Quarterly Review, April, 1869, p. 392.
*(2) In Hylobates syndactylus, as the name expresses, two of the
toes regularly cohere; and this, as Mr. Blyth informs me, is
occasionally the case with the toes of H. agilis, lar, and
leuciscus. Colobus is strictly arboreal and extraordinarily active
(Brehm, Illustriertes Thierleben, B. i., s. 50), but whether a
better climber than the species of the allied genera, I do not know.
It deserves notice that the feet of the sloths, the most arboreal
animals in the world, are wonderfully hooklike.
As soon as some ancient member in the great series of the primates
came to be less arboreal, owing to a change in its manner of procuring
subsistence, or to some change in the surrounding conditions, its
habitual manner of progression would have been modified: and thus it
would have been rendered more strictly quadrupedal or bipedal. Baboons
frequent hilly and rocky districts, and only from necessity climb high
trees;* and they have acquired almost the gait of a dog. Man alone has
become a biped; and we can, I think, partly see how he has come to
assume his erect attitude, which forms one of his most conspicuous
characters. Man could not have attained his present dominant
position in the world without the use of his hands, which are so
admirably adapted to act in obedience to his will. Sir C. Bell*(2)
insists that "the hand supplies all instruments, and by its
correspondence with the intellect gives him universal dominion." But
the hands and arms could hardly have become perfect enough to have
manufactured weapons, or to have hurled stones and spears with a
true aim, as long as they were habitually used for locomotion and
for supporting the whole weight of the body, or, as before remarked,
so long as they were especially fitted for climbing trees. Such
rough treatment would also have blunted the sense of touch, on which
their delicate use largely depends. From these causes alone it would
have been an advantage to man to become a biped; but for many
actions it is indispensable that the arms and whole upper part of
the body should be free; and he must for this end stand firmly on
his feet. To gain this great advantage, the feet have been rendered
flat; and the great toe has been peculiarly modified, though this
has entailed the almost complete loss of its power of prehension. It
accords with the principle of the division of physiological labour,
prevailing throughout the animal kingdom, that as the hands became
perfected for prehension, the feet should have become perfected for
support and locomotion. With some savages, however, the foot has not
altogether lost its prehensile power, as shewn by their manner of
climbing trees, and of using them in other ways.*(3)
* Brehm, Illustriertes Thierleben, B. i., s. 80.
*(2) "The Hand," &c., Bridgewater Treatise, 1833, p. 38.
*(3) Haeckel has an excellent discussion on the steps by which
man became a biped: Naturliche Schopfungsgeschicte, 1868, s. 507.
Dr. Buchner (Conferences sur la Theorie Darwinienne, 1869, p. 135) has
given good cases of the use of the foot as a prehensile organ by
man; and has also written on the manner of progression of the higher
apes, to which I allude in the following paragraph: see also Owen
(Anatomy of Vertebrates, vol. iii., p. 71) on this latter subject.
If it be an advantage to man to stand firmly on his feet and to have
his hands and arms free, of which, from his pre-eminent success in the
battle of life, there can be no doubt, then I can see no reason why it
should not have been advantageous to the progenitors of man to have
become more and more erect or bipedal. They would thus have been
better able to defend themselves with stones or clubs, to attack their
prey, or otherwise to obtain food. The best built individuals would in
the long run have succeeded best, and have survived in larger numbers.
If the gorilla and a few allied forms had become extinct, it might
have been argued, with great force and apparent truth, that an
animal could not have been gradually converted from a quadruped into a
biped, as all the individuals in an intermediate condition would
have been miserably ill-fitted for progression. But we know (and
this is well worthy of reflection) that the anthropomorphous apes
are now actually in an intermediate condition; and no one doubts
that they are on the whole well adapted for their conditions of
life. Thus the gorilla runs with a sidelong shambling gait, but more
commonly progresses by resting on its bent hands. The long-armed
apes occasionally use their arms like crutches, swinging their
bodies forward between them, and some kinds of Hylobates, without
having been taught, can walk or run upright with tolerable
quickness; yet they move awkwardly, and much less securely than man.
We see, in short, in existing monkeys a manner of progression
intermediate between that of a quadruped and a biped; but, as an
unprejudiced judge* insists, the anthropomorphous apes approach in
structure more nearly to the bipedal than to the quadrupedal type.
* Prof. Broca, "La Constitution des vertebres caudales"; La Revue
d'Anthropologie, 1872, p. 26, (separate copy).
As the progenitors of man became more and more erect, with their
hands and arms more and more modified for prehension and other
purposes, with their feet and legs at the same time transformed for
firm support and progression, endless other changes of structure would
have become necessary. The pelvis would have to be broadened, the
spine peculiarly curved, and the head fixed in an altered position,
all which changes have been attained by man. Prof. Schaaffhausen*
maintains that "the powerful mastoid processes of the human skull
are the result of his erect position"; and these processes are
absent in the orang, chimpanzee, &c., and are smaller in the gorilla
than in man. Various other structures, which appear connected with
man's erect position, might here have been added. It is very difficult
to decide how far these correlated modifications are the result of
natural selection, and how far of the inherited effects of the
increased use of certain parts, or of the action of one part on
another. No doubt these means of change often co-operate: thus when
certain muscles, and the crests of bone to which they are attached,
become enlarged by habitual use, this shews that certain actions are
habitually performed and must be serviceable. Hence the individuals
which performed them best, would tend to survive in greater numbers.
* "On the Primitive Form of the Skull," translated in
Anthropological Review, Oct., 1868, p. 428. Owen (Anatomy of
Vertebrates, vol. ii., 1866, p. 551) on the mastoid processes in the
higher apes.
The free use of the arms and hands, partly the cause and partly
the result of man's erect position, appears to have led in an indirect
manner to other modifications of structure. The early male forefathers
of man were, as previously stated, probably furnished with great
canine teeth; but as they gradually acquired the habit of using
stones, clubs, or other weapons, for fighting with their enemies or
rivals, they would use their jaws and teeth less and less. In this
case, the jaws, together with the teeth, would become reduced in size,
as we may feel almost sure from innumerable analogous cases. In a
future chapter we shall meet with a closely parallel case, in the
reduction or complete disappearance of the canine teeth in male
ruminants, apparently in relation with the development of their horns;
and in horses, in relation to their habit of fighting with their
incisor teeth and hoofs.
In the adult male anthropomorphous apes, as Rutimeyer,* and
others, have insisted, it is the effect on the skull of the great
development of the jaw-muscles that causes it to differ so greatly
in many respects from that of man, and has given to these animals "a
truly frightful physiognomy." Therefore, as the jaws and teeth in
man's progenitors gradually become reduced in size, the adult skull
would have come to resemble more and more that of existing man. As
we shall hereafter see, a great reduction of the canine teeth in the
males would almost certainly affect the teeth of the females through
inheritance.
* Die Grenzen der Thierwelt, eine Betrachtung zu Darwin's Lehre,
1868, s. 51.
As the various mental faculties gradually developed themselves the
brain would almost certainly become larger. No one, I presume,
doubts that the large proportion which the size of man's brain bears
to his body, compared to the same proportion in the gorilla or
orang, is closely connected with his higher mental powers. We meet
with closely analogous facts with insects, for in ants the cerebral
ganglia are of extraordinary dimensions, and in all the Hymenoptera
these ganglia are many times larger than in the less intelligent
orders, such as beetles.* On the other hand, no one supposes that
the intellect of any two animals or of any two men can be accurately
gauged by the cubic contents of their skulls. It is certain that there
may be extraordinary mental activity with an extremely small
absolute mass of nervous matter: thus the wonderfully diversified
instincts, mental powers, and affections of ants are notorious, yet
their cerebral ganglia are not so large as the quarter of a small
pin's head. Under this point of view, the brain of an ant is one of
the most marvellous atoms of matter in the world, perhaps more so than
the brain of a man.
* Dujardin, Annales des Sciences Nat., 3rd series, Zoolog., tom.
xiv., 1850, p. 203. See also Mr. Lowne, Anatomy and Phys. of the Musca
vomitoria, 1870, p. 14. My son, Mr. F. Darwin, dissected for me the
cerebral ganglia of the Formica rufa.
The belief that there exists in man some close relation between
the size of the brain and the development of the intellectual
faculties is supported by the comparison of the skulls of savage and
civilised races, of ancient and modern people, and by the analogy of
the whole vertebrate series. Dr. J. Barnard Davis has proved,* by many
careful measurements, that the mean internal capacity of the skull
in Europeans is 92.3 cubic inches; in Americans 87.5; in Asiatics
87.1; and in Australians only 81.9 cubic inches. Professor Broca*(2)
found that the nineteenth century skulls from graves in Paris were
larger than those from vaults of the twelfth century, in the
proportion of 1484 to 1426; and that the increased size, as
ascertained by measurements, was exclusively in the frontal part of
the skull- the seat of the intellectual faculties. Prichard is
persuaded that the present inhabitants of Britain have "much more
capacious braincases" than the ancient inhabitants. Nevertheless, it
must be admitted that some skulls of very high antiquity, such as
the famous one of Neanderthal, are well developed and capacious.*(3)
With respect to the lower animals, M. E. Lartet,*(4) by comparing
the crania of tertiary and recent mammals belonging to the same
groups, has come to the remarkable conclusion that the brain is
generally larger and the convolutions are more complex in the more
recent forms. On the other hand, I have shewn*(5) that the brains of
domestic rabbits are considerably reduced in bulk, in comparison
with those of the wild rabbit or hare; and this may be attributed to
their having been closely confined during many generations, so that
they have exerted their intellect, instincts, senses and voluntary
movements but little.
* Philosophical Transactions, 1869, p. 513.
*(2) "Les Selections," M. P. Broca, Revue d'Anthropologie,, 1873;
see also, as quoted in C. Vogt's Lectures on Man, Engl. translat.,
1864, pp. 88, 90. Prichard, Physical History of Mankind, vol. i.,
1838, p. 305.
*(3) In the interesting article just referred to, Prof. Broca has
well remarked, that in civilised nations, the average capacity of
the skull must be lowered by the preservation of a considerable number
of individuals, weak in mind and body, who would have been promptly
eliminated in the savage state. On the other hand, with savages, the
average includes only the more capable individuals, who have been able
to survive under extremely hard conditions of life. Broca thus
explains the otherwise inexplicable fact, that the mean capacity of
the skull of the ancient troglodytes of Lozere is greater than that of
modern Frenchmen.
*(4) Comptes-rendus des Sciences, &c., June 1, 1868.
*(5) The Variation of Animals and Plants under Domestication, vol.
i., pp. 124-129.
The gradually increasing weight of the brain and skull in man must
have influenced the development of the supporting spinal column,
more especially whilst he was becoming erect. As this change of
position was being brought about, the internal pressure of the brain
will also have influenced the form of the skull; for many facts shew
how easily the skull is thus effected. Ethnologists believe that it is
modified by the kind of cradle in which infants sleep. Habitual spasms
of the muscles, and a cicatrix from a severe burn, have permanently
modified the facial bones. In young persons whose heads have become
fixed either sideways or backwards, owing to disease, one of the two
eyes has changed its position, and the shape of the skull has been
altered apparently by the pressure of the brain in a new direction.* I
have shewn that with long-eared rabbits even so trifling a cause as
the lopping forward of one ear drags forward almost every bone of
the skull on that side; so that the bones on the opposite side no
longer strictly correspond. Lastly, if any animal were to increase
or diminish much in general size, without any change in its mental
powers, or if the mental powers were to be much increased or
diminished, without any great change in the size of the body, the
shape of the skull would almost certainly be altered. I infer this
from my observations on domestic rabbits, some kinds of which have
become very much larger than the wild animal, whilst others have
retained nearly the same size, but in both cases the brain has been
much reduced relatively to the size of the body. Now I was at first
much surprised on finding that in all these rabbits the skull had
become elongated or dolichocephalic; for instance, of two skulls of
nearly equal breadth, the one from a wild rabbit and the other from
a large domestic kind, the former was 3.15 and the latter 4.3 inches
in length.*(2) One of the most marked distinctions in different
races of men is that the skull in some is elongated, and in others
rounded; and here the explanation suggested by the case of the rabbits
may hold good; for Welcker finds that short "men incline more to
brachycephaly, and tall men to dolichocephaly";*(3) and tall men may
be compared with the larger and longer-bodied rabbits, all of which
have elongated skulls or are dolichocephalic.
* Schaaffhausen gives from Blumenbach and Busch, the cases of the
spasms and cicatrix in Anthropological Review, Oct., 1868, p. 420. Dr.
Jarrold (Anthropologia, 1808, pp. 115, 116) adduces from Camper and
from his own observations, cases of the modification of the skull from
the head being fixed in an unnatural position. He believes that in
certain trades, such as that of a shoemaker, where the head is
habitually held forward, the forehead becomes more rounded and
prominent.
*(2) Variation of Animals and Plants under Domestication, vol. i.,
p. 117, on the elongation of the skull; p. 119, on the effect of the
lopping of one ear.
*(3) Quoted by Schaaffhausen, in Anthropological Review, Oct., 1868,
p. 419.
From these several facts we can understand, to a certain extent, the
means by which the great size and more or less rounded form of the
skull have been acquired by man; and these are characters eminently
distinctive of him in comparison with the lower animals.
Another most conspicuous difference between man and the lower
animals is the nakedness of his skin. Whales and porpoises
(Cetacea), dugongs (Sirenia) and the hippopotamus are naked; and
this may be advantageous to them for gliding through the water; nor
would it be injurious to them from the loss of warmth, as the species,
which inhabit the colder regions, are protected by a thick layer of
blubber, serving the same purpose as the fur of seals and otters.
Elephants and rhinoceroses are almost hairless; and as certain extinct
species, which formerly lived under an arctic climate, were covered
with long wool or hair, it would almost appear as if the existing
species of both genera had lost their hairy covering from exposure
to heat. This appears the more probable, as the elephants in India
which live on elevated and cool districts are more hairy* than those
on the lowlands. May we then infer that man became divested of hair
from having aboriginally inhabited some tropical land? That the hair
is chiefly retained in the male sex on the chest and face, and in both
sexes at the junction of all four limbs with the trunk, favours this
inference- on the assumption that the hair was lost before man
became erect; for the parts which now retain most hair would then have
been most protected from the heat of the sun. The crown of the head,
however, offers a curious exception, for at all times it must have
been one of the most exposed parts, yet it is thickly clothed with
hair. The fact, however, that the other members of the order of
primates, to which man belongs, although inhabiting various hot
regions, are well clothed with hair, generally thickest on the upper
surface,*(2) is opposed to the supposition that man became naked
through the action of the sun. Mr. Belt believes*(3) that within the
tropies it is an advantage to man to be destitute of hair, as he is
thus enabled to free himself of the multitude of ticks (acari) and
other parasites, with which he is often infested, and which
sometimes cause ulceration. But whether this evil is of sufficient
magnitude to have led to the denudation of his body through natural
selection, may be doubted, since none of the many quadrupeds
inhabiting the tropics have, as far as I know, acquired any
specialised means of relief. The view which seems to me the most
probable is that man, or rather primarily woman, became divested of
hair for ornamental purposes, as we shall see under Sexual
Selection; and, according to this belief, it is not surprising that
man should differ so greatly in hairiness from all other primates, for
characters, gained through sexual selection, often differ to an
extraordinary degree in closely related forms.
* Owen, Anatomy of Vertebrates, vol. iii., p. 619.
*(2) Isidore Geoffroy St-Hilaire remarks (Histoire Nat. Generale,
tom. ii., 1859, pp. 215-217) on the head of man being covered with
long hair; also on the upper surfaces of monkeys and of other
mammals being more thickly clothed than the lower surfaces. This has
likewise been observed by various authors. Prof. P. Gervais
(Histoire Nat. des Mammiferes, tom. i., 1854, p. 28), however,
states that in the gorilla the hair is thinner on the back, where it
is partly rubbed off, than on the lower surface.
*(3) The Naturalist in Nicaragua, 1874, p. 209. As some confirmation
of Mr. Belt's view, I may quote the following passage from Sir W.
Denison (Varieties of Vice-Regal Life, vol. i., 1870, p. 440): "It
is said to be a practice with the Australians, when the vermin get
troublesome, to singe themselves."
According to a popular impression, the absence of a tail is
eminently distinctive of man; but as those apes which come nearest
to him are destitute of this organ, its disappearance does not
relate exclusively to man. The tail often differs remarkably in length
within the same genus: thus in some species of Macacus it is longer
than the whole body, and is formed of twenty-four vertebrae; in others
it consists of a scarcely visible stump, containing only three or four
vertebrae. In some kinds of baboons there are twenty-five, whilst in
the mandrill there are ten very small stunted caudal vertebrae, or,
according to Cuvier,* sometimes only five. The tail, whether it be
long or short, almost always tapers towards the end; and this, I
presume, results from the atrophy of the terminal muscles, together
with their arteries and nerves, through disuse, leading to the atrophy
of the terminal bones. But no explanation can at present be given of
the great diversity which often occurs in its length. Here, however,
we are more specially concerned with the complete external
disappearance of the tail. Professor Broca has recently shewn*(2) that
the tail in all quadrupeds consists of two portions, generally
separated abruptly from each other; the basal portion consists of
vertebrae, more or less perfectly channelled and furnished with
apophyses like ordinary vertebrae; whereas those of the terminal
portion are not channelled, are almost smooth, and scarcely resemble
true vertebrae. A tail, though not externally visible, is really
present in man and the anthropomorphous apes, and is constructed on
exactly the same pattern in both. In the terminal portion the
vertabrae, constituting the os coccyx, are quite rudimentary, being
much reduced in size and number. In the basal portion, the vertebrae
are likewise few, are united firmly together, and are arrested in
development; but they have been rendered much broader and flatter than
the corresponding vertebrae in the tails of other animals: they
constitute what Broca calls the accessory sacral vertebrae. These
are of functional importance by supporting certain internal parts
and in other ways; and their modification is directly connected with
the erect or semi-erect attitude of man and the anthropomorphous apes.
This conclusion is the more trustworthy, as Broca formerly held a
different view, which he has now abandoned. The modification,
therefore, of the basal caudal vertebrae in man and the higher apes
may have been effected, directly or indirectly, through natural
selection.
* Mr. St. George Mivart, Proc. Zoolog. Soc., 1865, pp. 562, 583. Dr.
J. E. Gray, Cat. Brit. Mus: " Skeletons." Owen, Anatomy of
Vertebrates, vol. ii., p. 517. Isidore Geoffroy, Hist. Nat. Gen., tom.
ii., p. 244.
*(2) Revue d'Anthropologie, 1872; "La Constitution des vertebres
caudales."
But what are we to say about the rudimentary and variable
vertebrae of the terminal portion of the tail, forming the os
coccyx? A notion which has often been, and will no doubt again be
ridiculed, namely, that friction has had something to do with the
disappearance of the external portion of the tail, is not so
ridiculous as it at first appears. Dr. Anderson* states that the
extremely short tail of Macacus brunneus is formed of eleven
vertebrae, including the imbedded basal ones. The extremity is
tendinous and contains no vertebrae; this is succeeded by five
rudimentary ones, so minute that together they are only one line and a
half in length, and these are permanently bent to one side in the
shape of a hook. The free part of the tail, only a little above an
inch in length, includes only four more small vertebrae. This short
tail is carried erect; but about a quarter of its total length is
doubled on to itself to the left; and this terminal part, which
includes the hook-like portion, serves "to fill up the interspace
between the upper divergent portion of the callosities"; so that the
animal sits on it, and thus renders it rough and callous. Dr. Anderson
thus sums up his observations: "These facts seem to me to have only
one explanation; this tail, from its short size, is in the monkey's
way when it sits down, and frequently becomes placed under the
animal while it is in this attitude; and from the circumstance that it
does not extend beyond the extremity of the ischial tuberosities, it
seems as if the tail originally had been bent round by the will of the
animal, into the interspace between the callosities, to escape being
pressed between them and the ground, and that in time the curvature
became permanent, fitting in of itself when the organ happens. to be
sat upon." Under these circumstances it is not surprising that the
surface of the tail should have been roughened and rendered callous,
and Dr. Murie,*(2) who carefully observed this species in the
Zoological Gardens, as well as three other closely allied forms with
slightly longer tails, says that when the animal sits down, the tail
"is necessarily thrust to one side of the buttocks; and whether long
or short its root is consequently liable to be rubbed or chafed." As
we now have evidence that mutilations occasionally produce an
inherited effect,*(3) it is not very improbable that in short-tailed
monkeys, the projecting part of the tail, being functionally
useless, should after many generations have become rudimentary and
distorted, from being continually rubbed and chafed. We see the
projecting part in this condition in the Macacus brunneus, and
absolutely aborted in the M. ecaudatus and in several of the higher
apes. Finally, then, as far as we can judge, the tail has
disappeared in man and the anthropomorphous apes, owing to the
terminal portion having been injured by friction during a long lapse
of time; the basal and embedded portion having been reduced and
modified, so as to become suitable to the erect or semi-erect
position.
* Proceedings Zoological Society, 1872, p. 210.
*(2) Proceedings Zoological Society, 1872, p. 786.
*(3) I allude to Dr. Brown-Sequard's observations on the transmitted
effect of an operation causing epilepsy in guinea-pigs, and likewise
more recently on the analogous effects of cutting the sympathetic
nerve in the neck. I shall hereafter have occasion to refer to Mr.
Salvin's interesting case of the apparently inherited effects of
motmots biting off the barbs of their own tail-feathers. See also on
the general subject Variation of Animals and Plants under
Domestication, vol. ii., pp. 22-24.
I have now endeavoured to shew that some of the most distinctive
characters of man have in all probability been acquired, either
directly, or more commonly indirectly, through natural selection. We
should bear in mind that modifications in structure or constitution
which do not serve to adapt an organism to its habits of life, to
the food which it consumes, or passively to the surrounding
conditions, cannot have been thus acquired. We must not, however, be
too confident in deciding what modifications are of service to each
being: we should remember how little we know about the use of many
parts, or what changes in the blood or tissues may serve to fit an
organism for a new climate or new kinds of food. Nor must we forget
the principle of correlation, by which, as Isidore Geoffroy has
shewn in the case of man, many strange deviations of structure are
tied together. Independently of correlation, a change in one part
often leads, through the increased or decreased use of other parts, to
other changes of a quite unexpected nature. It is also well to reflect
on such facts, as the wonderful growth of galls on plants caused by
the poison of an insect, and on the remarkable changes of colour in
the plumage of parrots when fed on certain fishes, or inoculated
with the poison of toads;* for we can thus see that the fluids of
the system, if altered for some special purpose, might induce other
changes. We should especially bear in mind that modifications acquired
and continually used during past ages for some useful purpose, would
probably become firmly fixed, and might be long inherited.
* The Variation of Animals and Plants under Domestication, vol. ii.,
pp. 280, 282.
Thus a large yet undefined extension may safely be given to the
direct and indirect results of natural selection; but I now admit,
after reading the essay by Nageli on plants, and the remarks by
various authors with respect to animals, more especially those
recently made by Professor Broca, that in the earlier editions of my
Origin of Species I perhaps attributed too much to the action of
natural selection or the survival of the fittest. I have altered the
fifth edition of the Origin so as to confine my remarks to adaptive
changes of structure; but I am convinced, from the light gained during
even the last few years, that very many structures which now appear to
us useless, will hereafter be proved to be useful, and will
therefore come within the range of natural selection. Nevertheless,
I did not formerly consider sufficiently the existence of
structures, which, as far as we can at present judge, are neither
beneficial nor injurious; and this I believe to be one of the greatest
oversights as yet detected in my work. I may be permitted to say, as
some excuse, that I had two distinct objects in view; firstly, to shew
that species had not been separately created, and secondly, that
natural selection had been the chief agent of change, though largely
aided by the inherited effects of habit, and slightly by the direct
action of the surrounding conditions. I was not, however, able to
annul the influence of my former belief, then almost universal, that
each species had been purposely created; and this led to my tacit
assumption that every detail of structure, excepting rudiments, was of
some special, though unrecognised, service. Any one with this
assumption in his mind would naturally extend too far the action of
natural selection, either during past or present times. Some of
those who admit the principle of evolution, but reject natural
selection, seem to forget, when criticising my book, that I had the
above two objects in view; hence if I have erred in giving to
natural selection great power, which I am very far from admitting,
or in having exaggerated its power, which is in itself probable, I
have at least, as I hope, done good service in aiding to overthrow the
dogma of separate creations.
It is, as I can now see, probable that all organic beings, including
man, possess peculiarities of structure, which neither are now, nor
were formerly of any service to them, and which, therefore, are of
no physiological importance. We know not what produces the
numberless slight differences between the individuals of each species,
for reversion only carries the problem a few steps backwards, but each
peculiarity must have had its efficient cause. If these causes,
whatever they may be, were to act more uniformly and energetically
during a lengthened period (and against this no reason can be
assigned), the result would probably be not a mere slight individual
difference, but a well-marked and constant modification, though one of
no physiological importance. Changed structures, which are in no way
beneficial, cannot be kept uniform through natural selection, though
the injurious will be thus eliminated. Uniformity of character
would, however, naturally follow from the assumed uniformity of the
exciting causes, and likewise from the free intercrossing of many
individuals. During successive periods, the same organism might in
this manner acquire successive modifications, which would be
transmitted in a nearly uniform state as long as the exciting causes
remained the same and there was free intercrossing. With respect to
the exciting causes we can only say, as when speaking of so-called
spontaneous variations, that they relate much more closely to the
constitution of the varying organism, than to the nature of the
conditions to which it has been subjected.
Conclusion.- In this chapter we have seen that as man at the present
day is liable, like every other animal, to multiform individual
differences or slight variations, so no doubt were the early
progenitors of man; the variations being formerly induced by the
same general causes, and governed by the same general and complex laws
as at present. As all animals tend to multiply beyond their means of
subsistence, so it must have been with the progenitors of man; and
this would inevitably lead to a struggle for existence and to
natural selection. The latter process would be greatly aided by the
inherited effects of the increased use of parts, and these two
processes would incessantly react on each other. It appears, also,
as we shall hereafter see, that various unimportant characters have
been acquired by man through sexual selection. An unexplained residuum
of change must be left to the assumed uniform action of those
unknown agencies, which occasionally induce strongly marked and abrupt
deviations of structure in our domestic productions.
Judging from the habits of savages and of the greater number of
the Quadrumana, primeval men, and even their ape-like progenitors,
probably lived in society. With strictly social animals, natural
selection sometimes acts on the individual, through the preservation
of variations which are beneficial to the community. A community which
includes a large number of well-endowed individuals increases in
number, and is victorious over other less favoured ones; even although
each separate member gains no advantage over the others of the same
community. Associated insects have thus acquired many remarkable
structures, which are of little or no service to the individual,
such as the pollen-collecting apparatus, or the sting of the
worker-bee, or the great jaws of soldier-ants. With the higher
social animals, I am not aware that any structure has been modified
solely for the good of the community, though some are of secondary
service to it. For instance, the horns of ruminants and the great
canine teeth of baboons appear to have been acquired by the males as
weapons for sexual strife, but they are used in defence of the herd or
troop. In regard to certain mental powers the case, as we shall see in
the fifth chapter, is wholly different; for these faculties have
been chiefly, or even exclusively, gained for the benefit of the
community, and the individuals thereof have at the same time gained an
advantage indirectly.
It has often been objected to such views as the foregoing, that
man is one of the most helpless and defenceless creatures in the
world; and that during his early and less well-developed condition, he
would have been still more helpless. The Duke of Argyll, for instance,
insists* that "the human frame has diverged from the structure of
brutes, in the direction of greater physical helplessness and
weakness. That is to say, it is a divergence which of all others it is
most impossible to ascribe to mere natural selection." He adduces
the naked and unprotected state of the body, the absence of great
teeth or claws for defence, the small strength and speed of man, and
his slight power of discovering food or of avoiding danger by smell.
To these deficiencies there might be added one still more serious,
namely, that he cannot climb quickly, and so escape from enemies.
The loss of hair would not have been a great injury to the inhabitants
of a warm country. For we know that the unclothed Fuegians can exist
under a wretched climate. When we compare the defenceless state of man
with that of apes, we must remember that the great canine teeth with
which the latter are provided, are possessed in their full development
by the males alone, and are chiefly used by them for fighting with
their rivals; yet the females, which are not thus provided, manage
to survive.
* Primeval Man, 1869, p. 66.
In regard to bodily size or strength, we do not know whether man
is descended from some small species, like the chimpanzee, or from one
as powerful as the gorilla; and, therefore, we cannot say whether
man has become larger and stronger, or smaller and weaker, than his
ancestors. We should, however, bear in mind that an animal
possessing great size, strength, and ferocity, and which, like the
gorilla, could defend itself from all enemies, would not perhaps
have become social: and this would most effectually have checked the
acquirement of the higher mental qualities, such as sympathy and the
love of his fellows. Hence it might have been an immense advantage
to man to have sprung from some comparatively weak creature.
The small strength and speed of man, his want of natural weapons,
&c., are more than counterbalanced, firstly, by his intellectual
powers, through which he has formed for himself weapons, tools, &c.,
though still remaining in a barbarous state, and, secondly, by his
social qualities which lead him to give and receive aid from his
fellow-men. No country in the world abounds in a greater degree with
dangerous beasts than southern Africa; no country presents more
fearful physical hardships than the arctic regions; yet one of the
puniest of races, that of the bushmen, maintains itself in southern
Africa, as do the dwarfed Esquimaux in the arctic regions. The
ancestors of man were, no doubt, inferior in intellect, and probably
in social disposition, to the lowest existing savages; but it is quite
conceivable that they might have existed, or even flourished, if
they had advanced in intellect, whilst gradually losing their
brute-like powers such as that of climbing trees, &c. But these
ancestors would not have been exposed to any special danger, even if
far more helpless and defenceless than any existing savages, had
they inhabited some warm continent or large island, such as Australia,
New Guinea, or Borneo, which is now the home of the orang. And natural
selection arising from the competition of tribe with tribe, in some
such large area as one of these, together with the inherited effects
of habit, would, under favourable conditions, have sufficed to raise
man to his present high position in the organic scale.
CHAPTER III.
COMPARISON OF THE MENTAL POWERS OF MAN AND THE LOWER ANIMALS.
WE HAVE seen in the last two chapters that man bears in his bodily
structure clear traces of his descent from some lower form; but it may
be urged that, as man differs so greatly in his mental power from
all other animals, there must be some error in this conclusion. No
doubt the difference in this respect is enormous, even if we compare
the mind of one of the lowest savages, who has no words to express any
number higher than four, and who uses hardly any abstract terms for
common objects or for the affections,* with that of the most highly
organised ape. The difference would, no doubt, still remain immense,
even if one of the higher apes had been improved or civilised as
much as a dog has been in comparison with its parent-form, the wolf or
jackal. The Fuegians rank amongst the lowest barbarians; but I was
continually struck with surprise how closely the three natives on
board H. M. S. Beagle, who had lived some years in England, and
could talk a little English, resembled us in disposition and in most
of our mental faculties. If no organic being excepting man had
possessed any mental power, or if his powers had been of a wholly
different nature from those of the lower animals, then we should never
have been able to convince ourselves that our high faculties had
been gradually developed. But it can be shewn that there is no
fundamental difference of this kind. We must also admit that there
is a much wider interval in mental power between one of the lowest
fishes, as a lamprey or lancelet, and one of the higher apes, than
between an ape and man; yet this interval is filled up by numberless
gradations.
* See the evidence on those points, as given by Lubbock, Prehistoric
Times, p. 354, &c.
Nor is the difference slight in moral disposition between a
barbarian, such as the man described by the old navigator Byron, who
dashed his child on the rocks for dropping a basket of sea-urchins,
and a Howard or Clarkson; and in intellect, between a savage who
uses hardly any abstract terms, and a Newton or Shakespeare.
Differences of this kind between the highest men of the highest
races and the lowest savages, are connected by the finest
gradations. Therefore it is possible that they might pass and be
developed into each other.
My object in this chapter is to shew that there is no fundamental
difference between man and the higher mammals in their mental
faculties. Each division of the subject might have been extended
into a separate essay, but must here be treated briefly. As no
classification of the mental powers has been universally accepted, I
shall arrange my remarks in the order most convenient for my
purpose; and will select those facts which have struck me most, with
the hope that they may produce some effect on the reader.
With respect to animals very low in the scale, I shall give some
additional facts under Sexual Selection, shewing that their mental
powers are much higher than might have been expected. The
variability of the faculties in the individuals of the same species is
an important point for us, and some few illustrations will here be
given. But it would be superfluous to enter into many details on
this head, for I have found on frequent enquiry, that it is the
unanimous opinion of all those who have long attended to animals of
many kinds, including birds, that the individuals differ greatly in
every mental characteristic. In what manner the mental powers were
first developed in the lowest organisms, is as hopeless an enquiry
as how life itself first originated. These are problems for the
distant future, if they are ever to be solved by man.
As man possesses the same senses as the lower animals, his
fundamental intuitions must be the same. Man has also some few
instincts in common, as that of self-preservation, sexual love, the
love of the mother for her new-born offspring, the desire possessed by
the latter to suck, and so forth. But man, perhaps, has somewhat fewer
instincts than those possessed by the animals which come next to him
in the series. The orang in the Eastern islands, and the chimpanzee in
Africa, build platforms on which they sleep; and, as both species
follow the same habit, it might be argued that this was due to
instinct, but we cannot feel sure that it is not the result of both
animals having similar wants, and possessing similar powers of
reasoning. These apes, as we may assume, avoid the many poisonous
fruits of the tropics, and man has no such knowledge: but as our
domestic animals, when taken to foreign lands, and when first turned
out in the spring, often eat poisonous herbs, which they afterwards
avoid, we cannot feel sure that the apes do not learn from their own
experience or from that of their parents what fruits to select. It is,
however, certain, as we shall presently see, that apes have an
instinctive dread of serpents, and probably of other dangerous
animals.
The fewness and the comparative simplicity of the instincts in the
higher animals are remarkable in contrast with those of the lower
animals. Cuvier maintained that instinct and intelligence stand in
an inverse ratio to each other; and some have thought that the
intellectual faculties of the higher animals have been gradually
developed from their instincts. But Pouchet, in an interesting essay,*
has shewn that no such inverse ratio really exists. Those insects
which possess the most wonderful instincts are certainly the most
intelligent. In the vertebrate series, the least intelligent
members, namely fishes and amphibians, do not possess complex
instincts; and amongst mammals the animal most remarkable for its
instincts, namely the beaver, is highly intelligent, as will be
admitted by every one who has read Mr. Morgan's excellent work.*(2)
* "L'Instinct chez les insectes," Revue des Deux Mondes, Feb., 1870,
p. 690.
*(2) The American Beaver and His Works, 1868.
Although the first dawnings of intelligence, according to Mr.
Herbert Spencer,* have been developed through the multiplication and
coordination of reflex actions, and although many of the simpler
instincts graduate into reflex actions, and can hardly be
distinguished from them, as in the case of young animals sucking,
yet the more complex instincts seem to have originated independently
of intelligence. I am, however, very far from wishing to deny that
instinctive actions may lose their fixed and untaught character, and
be replaced by others performed by the aid of the free will. On the
other hand, some intelligent actions, after being performed during
several generations, become converted into instincts and are
inherited, as when birds on oceanic islands learn to avoid man.
These actions may then be said to be degraded in character, for they
are no longer performed through reason or from experience. But the
greater number of the more complex instincts appear to have been
gained in a wholly different manner, through the natural selection
of variations of simpler instinctive actions. Such variations appear
to arise from the same unknown causes acting on the cerebral
organisation, which induce slight variations or individual differences
in other parts of the body; and these variations, owing to our
ignorance, are often said to arise spontaneously. We can, I think,
come to no other conclusion with respect to the origin of the more
complex instincts, when we reflect on the marvellous instincts of
sterile worker-ants and bees, which leave no offspring to inherit
the effects of experience and of modified habits.
* The Principles of Psychology, 2nd ed., 1870, pp. 418-443.
Although, as we learn from the above-mentioned insects and the
beaver, a high degree of intelligence is certainly compatible with
complex instincts, and although actions, at first learnt voluntarily
can soon through habit be performed with the quickness and certainty
of a reflex action, yet it is not improbable that there is a certain
amount of interference between the development of free intelligence
and of instinct,- which latter implies some inherited modification
of the brain. Little is known about the functions of the brain, but we
can perceive that as the intellectual powers become highly
developed, the various parts of the brain must be connected by very
intricate channels of the freest intercommunication; and as a
consequence each separate part would perhaps tend to be less well
fitted to answer to particular sensations or associations in a
definite and inherited- that is instinctive- manner. There seems
even to exist some relation between a low degree of intelligence and a
strong tendency to the formation of fixed, though not inherited
habits; for as a sagacious physician remarked to me, persons who are
slightly imbecile tend to act in everything by routine or habit; and
they are rendered much happier if this is encouraged.
I have thought this digression worth giving, because we may easily
underrate the mental powers of the higher animals, and especially of
man, when we compare their actions founded on the memory of past
events, on foresight, reason, and imagination, with exactly similar
actions instinctively performed by the lower animals; in this latter
case the capacity of performing such actions has been gained, step
by step, through the variability of the mental organs and natural
selection, without any conscious intelligence on the part of the
animal during each successive generation. No doubt, as Mr. Wallace has
argued,* much of the intelligent work done by man is due to
imitation and not to reason; but there is this great difference
between his actions and many of those performed by the lower
animals, namely, that man cannot, on his first trial, make, for
instance, a stone hatchet or a canoe, through his power of
imitation. He has to learn his work by practice; a beaver, on the
other hand, can make its dam or canal, and a bird its nest, as well,
or nearly as well, and a spider its wonderful web, quite as
well,*(2) the first time it tries as when old and experienced.
* Contributions to the Theory of Natural Selection, 1870, p. 212.
*(2) For the evidence on this head, see Mr. J. Traherne
Moggridge's most interesting work, Harvesting Ants and Trap-Door
Spiders, 1873, pp. 126, 128.
To return to our immediate subject: the lower animals, like man,
manifestly feel pleasure and pain, happiness and misery. Happiness
is never better exhibited than by young animals, such as puppies,
kittens, lambs, &c., when playing together, like our own children.
Even insects play together, as has been described by that excellent
observer, P. Huber,* who saw ants chasing and pretending to bite
each other, like so many puppies.
* Recherches sur les Moeurs des Fourmis, 1810, p. 173.
The fact that the lower animals are excited by the same emotions
as ourselves is so well established, that it will not be necessary
to weary the reader by many details. Terror acts in the same manner on
them as on us, causing the muscles to tremble, the heart to palpitate,
the sphincters to be relaxed, and the hair to stand on end. Suspicion,
the offspring of fear, is eminently characteristic of most wild
animals. It is, I think, impossible to read the account given by Sir
E. Tennent, of the behaviour of the female elephants, used as
decoys, without admitting that they intentionally practise deceit, and
well know what they are about. Courage and timidity are extremely
variable qualities in the individuals of the same species, as is
plainly seen in our dogs. Some dogs and horses are ill-tempered, and
easily turn sulky; others are good-tempered; and these qualities are
certainly inherited. Every one knows how liable animals are to furious
rage, and how plainly they shew it. Many, and probably true, anecdotes
have been published on the long-delayed and artful revenge of
various animals. The accurate Rengger, and Brehm* state that the
American and African monkeys which they kept tame, certainly
revenged themselves. Sir Andrew Smith, a zoologist whose scrupulous
accuracy was known to many persons, told me the following story of
which he was himself an eye-witness; at the Cape of Good Hope an
officer had often plagued a certain baboon, and the animal, seeing him
approaching one Sunday for parade, poured water into a hole and
hastily made some thick mud, which he skilfully dashed over the
officer as he passed by, to the amusement of many bystanders. For long
afterwards the baboon rejoiced and triumphed whenever he saw his
victim.
* All the following statements, given on the authority of these
two naturalists, are taken from Rengger's Naturgesch. der
Saugethiere von Paraguay, 1830, ss. 41-57, and from Brehm's
Thierleben, B. i., ss. 10-87.
The love of a dog for his master is notorious; as an old writer
quaintly says,* "A dog is the only thing on this earth that luvs you
more than he luvs himself."
* Quoted by Dr. Lauder Lindsay, in his "Physiology of Mind in the
Lower Animals," Journal of Mental Science, April, 1871, p. 38.
In the agony of death a dog has been known to caress his master, and
every one has heard of the dog suffering under vivisection, who licked
the hand of the operator; this man, unless the operation was fully
justified by an increase of our knowledge, or unless he had a heart of
stone, must have felt remorse to the last hour of his life.
As Whewell* has well asked, "Who that reads the touching instances
of maternal affection, related so often of the women of all nations,
and of the females of all animals, can doubt that the principle of
action is the same in the two cases?" We see maternal affection
exhibited in the most trifling details; thus Rengger observed an
American monkey (a Cebus) carefully driving away the flies which
plagued her infant; and Duvaucel saw a Hylobates washing the faces
of her young ones in a stream. So intense is the grief of female
monkeys for the loss of their young, that it invariably caused the
death of certain kinds kept under confinement by Brehm in N. Africa.
Orphan monkeys were always adopted and carefully guarded by the
other monkeys, both males and females. One female baboon had so
capacious a heart that she not only adopted young monkeys of other
species, but stole young dogs and cats, which she continually
carried about. Her kindness, however, did not go so far as to share
her food with her adopted offspring, at which Brehm was surprised,
as his monkeys always divided everything quite fairly with their own
young ones. An adopted kitten scratched this affectionate baboon,
who certainly had a fine intellect, for she was much astonished at
being scratched, and immediately examined the kitten's feet, and
without more ado bit off the claws.*(2) In the Zoological Gardens, I
heard from the keeper that an old baboon (C. chacma) had adopted a
Rhesus monkey; but when a young drill and mandrill were placed in
the cage, she seemed to perceive that these monkeys, though distinct
species, were her nearer relatives, for she at once rejected the
Rhesus and adopted both of them. The young Rhesus, as I saw, was
greatly discontented at being thus rejected, and it would, like a
naughty child, annoy and attack the young drill and mandrill
whenever it could do so with safety; this conduct exciting great
indignation in the old baboon. Monkeys will also, according to
Brehm, defend their master when attacked by any one, as well as dogs
to whom they are attached, from the attacks of other dogs. But we here
trench on the subjects of sympathy and fidelity, to which I shall
recur. Some of Brehm's monkeys took much delight in teasing a
certain old dog whom they disliked, as well as other animals, in
various ingenious ways.
* Bridgewater Treatise, p. 263.
*(2) A critic, without any grounds (Quarterly Review, July, 1871, p.
72), disputes the possibility of this act as described by Brehm, for
the sake of discrediting my work. Therefore I tried, and found that
I could readily seize with my own teeth the sharp little claws of a
kitten nearly five weeks old.
Most of the more complex emotions are common to the higher animals
and ourselves. Every one has seen how jealous a dog is of his master's
affection, if lavished on any other creature; and I have observed
the same fact with monkeys. This shews that animals not only love, but
have desire to be loved. Animals manifestly feel emulation. They
love approbation or praise; and a dog carrying a basket for his master
exhibits in a high degree self-complacency or pride. There can, I
think, be no doubt that a dog feels shame, as distinct from fear,
and something very like modesty when begging too often for food. A
great dog scorns the snarling of a little dog, and this may be
called magnanimity. Several observers have stated that monkeys
certainly dislike being laughed at; and they sometimes invent
imaginary offences. In the Zoological Gardens I saw a baboon who
always got into a furious rage when his keeper took out a letter or
book and read it aloud to him; and his rage was so violent that, as
I witnessed on one occasion, he bit his own leg till the blood flowed.
Dogs shew what may be fairly called a sense of humour, as distinct
from mere play; if a bit of stick or other such object be thrown to
one, he will often carry it away for a short distance; and then
squatting down with it on the ground close before him, will wait until
his master comes quite close to take it away. The dog will then
seize it and rush away in triumph, repeating the same manoeuvre, and
evidently enjoying the practical joke.
We will now turn to the more intellectual emotions and faculties,
which are very important, as forming the basis for the development
of the higher mental powers. Animals manifestly enjoy excitement,
and suffer from ennui, as may be seen with dogs, and, according to
Rengger, with monkeys. All animals feel Wonder, and many exhibit
Curiosity. They sometimes suffer from this latter quality, as when the
hunter plays antics and thus attracts them; I have witnessed this with
deer, and so it is with the wary chamois, and with some kinds of
wild-ducks. Brehm gives a curious account of the instinctive dread,
which his monkeys exhibited, for snakes; but their curiosity was so
great that they could not desist from occasionally satiating their
horror in a most human fashion, by lifting up the lid of the box in
which the snakes were kept. I was so much surprised at this account,
that I took a stuffed and coiled-up snake into the monkey-house at the
Zoological Gardens, and the excitement thus caused was one of the most
curious spectacles which I ever beheld. Three species of Cercopithecus
were the most alarmed; they dashed about their cages, and uttered
sharp signal cries of danger, which were understood by the other
monkeys. A few young monkeys and one old Anubis baboon alone took no
notice of the snake. I then placed the stuffed specimen on the
ground in one of the larger compartments. After a time all the monkeys
collected round it in a large circle, and staring intently,
presented a most ludicrous appearance. They became extremely
nervous; so that when a wooden ball, with which they were familiar
as a plaything, was accidentally moved in the straw, under which it
was partly hidden, they all instantly started away. These monkeys
behaved very differently when a dead fish, a mouse,* a living
turtle, and other new objects were placed in their cages; for though
at first frightened, they soon approached, handled and examined
them. I then placed a live snake in a paper bag, with the mouth
loosely closed, in one of the larger compartments. One of the
monkeys immediately approached, cautiously opened the bag a little,
peeped in, and instantly dashed away. Then I witnessed what Brehm
has described, for monkey after monkey, with head raised high and
turned on one side, could not resist taking a momentary peep into
the upright bag, at the dreadful object lying quietly at the bottom.
It would almost appear as if monkeys had some notion of zoological
affinities, for those kept by Brehm exhibited a strange, though
mistaken, instinctive dread of innocent lizards and frogs. An orang,
also, has been known to be much alarmed at the first sight of a
turtle.*(2)
* I have given a short account of their behaviour on this occasion
in my Expression of the Emotions in Man and Animals, p. 43.
*(2) W. C. L. Martin, Natural History of Mammalia, 1841, p. 405.
The principle of Imitation is strong in man, and especially, as I
have myself observed, with savages. In certain morbid states of the
brain this tendency is exaggerated to an extraordinary degree: some
hemiplegic patients and others, at the commencement of inflammatory
softening of the brain, unconsciously imitate every word which is
uttered, whether in their own or in a foreign language, and every
gesture or action which is performed near them.* Desor*(2) has
remarked that no animal voluntarily imitates an action performed by
man, until in the ascending scale we come to monkeys, which are well
known to be ridiculous mockers. Animals, however, sometimes imitate
each other's actions: thus two species of wolves, which had been
reared by dogs, learned to bark, as does sometimes the jackal,*(3) but
whether this can be called voluntary imitation is another question.
Birds imitate the songs of their parents, and sometimes of other
birds; and parrots are notorious imitators of any sound which they
often hear. Dureau de la Malle gives an account*(4) of a dog reared by
a cat, who learnt to imitate the well-known action of a cat licking
her paws, and thus washing her ears and face; this was also
witnessed by the celebrated naturalist Audouin. I have received
several confirmatory accounts; in one of these, a dog had not been
suckled by a cat, but had been brought up with one, together with
kittens, and had thus acquired the above habit, which he ever
afterwards practised during his life of thirteen years. Dureau de la
Malle's dog likewise learnt from the kittens to play with a ball by
rolling it about with his fore paws, and springing on it. A
correspondent assures me that a cat in his house used to put her
paws into jugs of milk having too narrow a mouth for her head. A
kitten of this cat soon learned the same trick, and practised it
ever afterwards, whenever there was an opportunity.
* Dr. Bateman, On Aphasia, 1870, p. 110.
*(2) Quoted by Vogt, Memoire sur les Microcephales, 1867, p. 168.
*(3) The Variation of Animals and Plants under Domestication, vol.
i., p. 27.
*(4) Annales des Sciences Nat., (1st series), tom, xxii., p. 397.
The parents of many animals, trusting to the principle of
imitation in their young, and more especially to their instinctive
or inherited tendencies, may be said to educate them. We see this when
a cat brings a live mouse to her kittens; and Dureau de la Malle has
given a curious account (in the paper above quoted) of his
observations on hawks which taught their young dexterity, as well as
judgment of distances, by first dropping through the air dead mice and
sparrows, which the young generally failed to catch, and then bringing
them live birds and letting them loose.
Hardly any faculty is more important for the intellectual progress
of man than Attention. Animals clearly manifest this power, as when
a cat watches by a hole and prepares to spring on its prey. Wild
animals sometimes become so absorbed when thus engaged, that they
may be easily approached. Mr. Bartlett has given me a curious proof
how variable this faculty is in monkeys. A man who trains monkeys to
act in plays, used to purchase common kinds from the Zoological
Society at the price of five pounds for each; but he offered to give
double the price, if he might keep three or four of them for a few
days, in order to select one. When asked how he could possibly learn
so soon, whether a particular monkey would turn out a good actor, he
answered that it all depended on their power of attention. If when
he was talking and explaining anything to a monkey, its attention
was easily distracted, as by a fly on the wall or other trifling
object, the case was hopeless. If he tried by punishment to make an
inattentive monkey act, it turned sulky. On the other hand, a monkey
which carefully attended to him could always be trained.
It is almost superfluous to state that animals have excellent
Memories for persons and places. A baboon at the Cape of Good Hope, as
I have been informed by Sir Andrew Smith, recognised him with joy
after an absence of nine months. I had a dog who was savage and averse
to all strangers, and I purposely tried his memory after an absence of
five years and two days. I went near the stable where he lived, and
shouted to him in my old manner; he shewed no joy, but instantly
followed me out walking, and obeyed me, exactly as if I had parted
with him only half an hour before. A train of old associations,
dormant during five years, had thus been instantaneously awakened in
his mind. Even ants, as P. Huber* has clearly shewn, recognised
their fellow-ants belonging to the same community after a separation
of four months. Animals can certainly by some means judge of the
intervals of time between recurrent events.
* Les Moeurs des Fourmis, 1810, p. 150.
The Imagination is one of the highest prerogatives of man. By this
faculty he unites former images and ideas, independently of the
will, and thus creates brilliant and novel results. A poet, as Jean
Paul Richter remarks,* "who must reflect whether he shall make a
character say yes or no- to the devil with him; he is only a stupid
corpse." Dreaming gives us the best notion of this power; as Jean Paul
again says, "The dream is an involuntary art of poetry." The value
of the products of our imagination depends of course on the number,
accuracy, and clearness of our impressions, on our judgment and
taste in selecting or rejecting the involuntary combinations, and to a
certain extent on our power of voluntarily combining them. As dogs,
cats, horses, and probably all the higher animals, even birds*(2) have
vivid dreams, and this is shewn by their movements and the sounds
uttered, we must admit that they possess some power of imagination.
There must be something special, which causes dogs to howl in the
night, and especially during moonlight, in that remarkable and
melancholy manner called baying. All dogs do not do so; and, according
to Houzeau,*(3) they do not then look at the moon, but at some fixed
point near the horizon. Houzeau thinks that their imaginations are
disturbed by the vague outlines of the surrounding objects, and
conjure up before them fantastic images: if this be so, their feelings
may almost be called superstitious.
* Quoted in Dr. Maudsley's Physiology and Pathology of Mind, 1868,
pp. 19, 220.
*(2) Dr. Jerdon, Birds of India, vol. i., 1862, p. xxi. Houzeau says
that his parakeets and canary-birds dreamt: Etudes sur les Facultes
Mentales des Animaux, tom. ii., p. 136.
*(3) ibid., 1872, tom. ii., p. 181.
Of all the faculties of the human mind, it will, I presume, be
admitted that Reason stands at the summit. Only a few persons now
dispute that animals possess some power of reasoning. Animals may
constantly be seen to pause, deliberate, and resolve. It is a
significant fact, that the more the habits of any particular animal
are studied by a naturalist, the more he attributes to reason and
the less to unlearnt instincts.* In future chapters we shall see
that some animals extremely low in the scale apparently display a
certain amount of reason. No doubt it is often difficult to
distinguish between the power of reason and that of instinct. For
instance. Dr. Hayes, in his work on The Open Polar Sea, repeatedly
remarks that his dogs, instead of continuing to draw the sledges in
a compact body, diverged and separated when they came to thin ice,
so that their weight might be more evenly distributed. This was
often the first warning which the travellers received that the ice was
becoming thin and dangerous. Now, did the dogs act thus from the
experience of each individual, or from the example of the older and
wiser dogs, or from an inherited habit, that is from instinct? This
instinct, may possibly have arisen since the time, long ago, when dogs
were first employed by the natives in drawing their sledges; or the
arctic wolves, the parent-stock of the Esquimaux dog, may have
acquired an instinct impelling them not to attack their prey in a
close pack, when on thin ice.
* Mr. L. H. Morgan's work on The American Beaver, 1868, offers a
good illustration of this remark. I cannot help thinking, however,
that he goes too far in undertaking the power of instinct.
We can only judge by the circumstances under which actions are
performed, whether they are due to instinct, or to reason, or to the
mere association of ideas: this latter principle, however, is
intimately connected with reason. A curious case has been given by
Prof. Mobius,* of a pike, separated by a plate of glass from an
adjoining aquarium stocked with fish, and who often dashed himself
with such violence against the glass in trying to catch the other
fishes, that he was sometimes completely stunned. The pike went on
thus for three months, but at last learnt caution, and ceased to do
so. The plate of glass was then removed, but the pike would not attack
these particular fishes, though he would devour others which were
afterwards introduced; so strongly was the idea of a violent shock
associated in his feeble mind with the attempt on his former
neighbours. If a savage, who had never seen a large plate-glass
window, were to dash himself even once against it, he would for a long
time afterwards associate a shock with a window-frame; but very
differently from the pike, he would probably reflect on the nature
of the impediment, and be cautious under analogous circumstances.
Now with monkeys, as we shall presently see, a painful or merely a
disagreeable impression, from an action once performed, is sometimes
sufficient to prevent the animal from repeating it. If we attribute
this difference between the monkey and the pike solely to the
association of ideas being so much stronger and more persistent in the
one than the other, though the pike often received much the more
severe injury, can we maintain in the case of man that a similar
difference implies the possession of a fundamentally different mind?
* Die Bewegungen der Thiere, &c., 1873, p. 11.
Houzeau relates* that, whilst crossing a wide and arid plain in
Texas, his two dogs suffered greatly from thirst, and that between
thirty and forty times they rushed down the hollows to search for
water. These hollows were not valleys, and there were no trees in
them, or any other difference in the vegetation, and as they were
absolutely dry there could have been no smell of damp earth. The
dogs behaved as if they knew that a dip in the ground offered them the
best chance of finding water, and Houzeau has often witnessed the same
behaviour in other animals.
* Etudes sur les Facultes Mentales des Animaux, 1872, tom. ii., p.
265.
I have seen, as I daresay have others, that when a small object is
thrown on the ground beyond the reach of one of the elephants in the
Zoological Gardens, he blows through his trunk on the ground beyond
the object, so that the current reflected on all sides may drive the
object within his reach. Again a well-known ethnologist, Mr. Westropp,
informs me that he observed in Vienna a bear deliberately making
with his paw a current in some water, which was close to the bars of
his cage, so as to draw a piece of floating bread within his reach.
These actions of the elephant and bear can hardly be attributed to
ins7tinct or inherited habit, as they would be of little use to an
animal in a state of nature. Now, what is the difference between
such actions, when performed by an uncultivated man, and by one of the
higher animals?
The savage and the dog have often found water at a low level, and
the coincidence under such circumstances has become associated in
their minds. A cultivated man would perhaps make some general
proposition on the subject; but from all that we know of savages it is
extremely doubtful whether they would do so, and a dog certainly would
not. But a savage, as well as a dog, would search in the same way,
though frequently disappointed; and in both it seems to be equally
an act of reason, whether or not any general proposition on the
subject is consciously placed before the mind.* The same would apply
to the elephant and the bear making currents in the air or water.
The savage would certainly neither know nor care by what law the
desired movements were effected; yet his act would be guided by a rude
process of reasoning, as surely as would a philosopher in his
longest chain of deductions. There would no doubt be this difference
between him and one of the higher animals, that he would take notice
of much slighter circumstances and conditions, and would observe any
connection between them after much less experience, and this would
be of paramount importance. I kept a daily record of the actions of
one of my infants, and when he was about eleven months old, and before
he could speak a single word, I was continually struck with the
greater quickness, with which all sorts of objects and sounds were
associated together in his mind, compared with that of the most
intelligent dogs I ever knew. But the higher animals differ in exactly
the same way in this power of association from those low in the scale,
such as the pike, as well as in that of drawing inferences and of
observation.
* Prof. Huxley has analysed with admirable clearness the mental
steps by which a man, as well as a dog, arrives at a conclusion in a
case analogous to that given in my text. See his article, "Mr.
Darwin's Critics," in the Contemporary Review, Nov., 1871, p. 462, and
in his Critiques and Essays, 1873, p. 279.
The promptings of reason, after very short experience, are well
shewn by the following actions of American monkeys, which stand low in
their order. Rengger, a most careful observer, states that when he
first gave eggs to his monkeys in Paraguay, they smashed them, and
thus lost much of their contents; afterwards they gently hit one end
against some hard body, and picked off the bits of shell with their
fingers. After cutting themselves only once with any sharp tool,
they would not touch it again, or would handle it with the greatest
caution. Lumps of sugar were often given them wrapped up in paper; and
Rengger sometimes put a live wasp in the paper, so that in hastily
unfolding it they got stung; after this had once happened, they always
first held the packet to their ears to detect any movement within.*
* Mr. Belt, in his most interesting work, The Naturalist in
Nicaragua, 1874, p. 119, likewise describes various actions of a tamed
Cebus, which, I think, clearly shew that this animal possessed some
reasoning power.
The following cases relate to dogs. Mr. Colquhoun* winged two
wild-ducks, which fell on the further side of a stream; his
retriever tried to bring over both at once, but could not succeed; she
then, though never before known to ruffle a feather, deliberately
killed one, brought over the other, and returned for the dead bird.
Col. Hutchinson relates that two partridges were shot at once, one
being killed, the other wounded; the latter ran away, and was caught
by the retriever, who on her return came across the dead bird; "she
stopped, evidently greatly puzzled, and after one or two trials,
finding she could not take it up without permitting the escape of
the winged bird, she considered a moment, then deliberately murdered
it by giving it a severe crunch, and afterwards brought away both
together. This was the only known instance of her ever having wilfully
injured any game." Here we have reason though not quite perfect, for
the retriever might have brought the wounded bird first and then
returned for the dead one, as in the case of the two wild-ducks. I
give the above cases, as resting on the evidence of two independent
witnesses, and because in both instances the retrievers, after
deliberation, broke through a habit which is inherited by them (that
of not killing the game retrieved), and because they shew how strong
their reasoning faculty must have been to overcome a fixed habit.
* The Moor and the Loch, p. 45. Col. Hutchinson on Dog Breaking,
1850, p. 46.
I will conclude by quoting a remark by the illustrious Humboldt.*
"The muleteers in S. America say, 'I will not give you the mule
whose step is easiest, but la mas racional,- the one that reasons
best'"; and; as, he adds, "this popular expression, dictated by long
experience, combats the system of animated machines, better perhaps
than all the arguments of speculative philosophy." Nevertheless some
writers even yet deny that the higher animals possess a trace of
reason; and they endeavor to explain away, by what appears to be
mere verbiage,*(2) all such facts as those above given.
* Personal Narrative, Eng. translat., vol. iii., p. 106.
*(2) I am glad to find that so acute a reasoner as Mr. Leslie
Stephen ("Darwinism and Divinity," Essays on Free Thinking, 1873, p.
80), in speaking of the supposed impassable barrier between the
minds of man and the lower animals, says, "The distinctions, indeed,
which have been drawn, seem to us to rest upon no better foundation
than a great many other metaphysical distinctions; that is, the
assumption that because you can give two things different names,
they must therefore have different natures. It is difficult to
understand how anybody who has ever kept a dog, or seen an elephant,
can have any doubt as to an animal's power of performing the essential
processes of reasoning."
It has, I think, now been shewn that man and the higher animals,
especially the primates, have some few instincts in common. All have
the same senses, intuitions, and sensations,- similar passions,
affections, and emotions, even the more complex ones, such as
jealousy, suspicion, emulation, gratitude, and magnanimity; they
practise deceit and are revengeful; they are sometimes susceptible
to ridicule, and even have a sense of humour; they feel wonder and
curiosity; they possess the same faculties of imitation, attention,
deliberation, choice, memory, imagination, the association of ideas,
and reason, though in very different degrees. The individuals of the
same species graduate in intellect from absolute imbecility to high
excellence. They are also liable to insanity, though far less often
than in the case of man.* Nevertheless, many authors have insisted
that man is divided by an insuperable barrier from all the lower
animals in in his mental faculties. I formerly made a collection of
above a score of such aphorisms, but they are almost worthless, as
their wide difference and number prove the difficulty, if not the
impossibility, of the attempt. It has been asserted that man alone
is capable of progressive improvement; that he alone makes use of
tools or fire, domesticates other animals, or possesses property; that
no animal has the power of abstraction, or of forming general
concepts, is self-conscious and comprehends itself; that no animal
employs language; that man alone has a sense of beauty, is liable to
caprice, has the feeling of gratitude, mystery, &c.; believes in
God, or is endowed with a conscience. I will hazard a few remarks on
the more important and interesting of these points.
* See "Madness in Animals," by Dr. W. Lauder Lindsay, in Journal
of Mental Science, July, 1871.
Archbishop Sumner formerly maintained* that man alone is capable
of progressive improvement. That he is capable of incomparably greater
and more rapid improvement than is any other animal, admits of no
dispute; and this is mainly due to his power of speaking and handing
down his acquired knowledge. With animals, looking first to the
individual, every one who has had any experience in setting traps,
knows that young animals can he caught much more easily than old ones;
and they can be much more easily approached by an enemy. Even with
respect to old animals, it is impossible to catch many in the same
place and in the same kind of trap, or to destroy them by the same
kind of poison; yet it is improbable that all should have partaken
of the poison, and impossible that all should have been caught in a
trap. They must learn caution by seeing their brethren caught or
poisoned. In North America, where the fur-bearing animals have long
been pursued, they exhibit, according to the unanimous testimony of
all observers, an almost incredible amount of sagacity, caution and
cunning; but trapping has been there so long carried on, that
inheritance may possibly have come into play. I have received
several accounts that when telegraphs are first set up in any
district, many birds kill themselves by flying against the wires,
but that in the course of a very few years they learn to avoid this
danger, by seeing, as it would appear, their comrades killed.*(2)
* Quoted by Sir C. Lyell, Antiquity of Man, p. 497.
*(2) For additional evidence, with details, see M. Houzeau, Etudes
sur les Facultes Mentales des Animaux, tom. ii., 1872, p. 147.
If we look to successive generations, or to the race, there is no
doubt that birds and other animals gradually both acquire and lose
caution in relation to man or other enemies;* and this caution is
certainly in chief part an inherited habit or instinct, but in part
the result of individual experience. A good observer, Leroy,*(2)
states, that in districts where foxes are much hunted, the young, on
first leaving their burrows, are incontestably much more wary than the
old ones in districts where they are not much disturbed.
* See, with respect to birds on oceanic islands, my Journal of
Researches during the Voyage of the "Beagle," 1845, p. 398. Also,
Origin of Species.(OOS)
*(2) Lettres Phil. sur l'Intelligence des Animaux, nouvelle edit.,
1802, p. 86.
Our domestic dogs are descended from wolves and jackals,* and though
they may not have gained in cunning, and may have lost in wariness and
suspicion, yet they have progressed in certain moral qualities, such
as in affection, trust-worthiness, temper, and probably in general
intelligence. The common rat has conquered and beaten several other
species throughout Europe, in parts of North America, New Zealand, and
recently in Formosa, as well as on the mainland of China. Mr.
Swinhoe,*(2) who describes these two latter cases, attributes the
victory of the common rat over the large Mus coninga to its superior
cunning; and this latter quality may probably be attributed to the
habitual exercise of all its faculties in avoiding extirpation by man,
as well as to nearly all the less cunning or weak-minded rats having
been continuously destroyed by him. It is, however, possible that
the success of the common rat may be due to its having possessed
greater cunning than its fellow-species, before it became associated
with man. To maintain, independently of any direct evidence, that no
animal during the course of ages has progressed in intellect or
other mental faculties, is to beg the question of the evolution of
species. We have seen that, according to Lartet, existing mammals
belonging to several orders have larger brains than their ancient
tertiary prototypes.
* See the evidence on this head in chap. i., vol. i., On the
Variation of Animals and Plants under Domestication.
*(2) Proceedings Zoological Society, 1864, p. 186.
It has often been said that no animal uses any tool; but the
chimpanzee in a state of nature cracks a native fruit, somewhat like a
walnut, with a stone.* Rengger*(2) easily taught an American monkey
thus to break open hard palm-nuts; and afterwards of its own accord,
it used stones to open other kinds of nuts, as well as boxes. It
thus also removed the soft rind of fruit that had a disagreeable
flavour. Another monkey was taught to open the lid of a large box with
a stick, and afterwards it used the stick as a lever to move heavy
bodies; and I have myself seen a young orang put a stick into a
crevice, slip his hand to the other end, and use it in the proper
manner as a lever. The tamed elephants in India are well known to
break off branches of trees and use them to drive away the flies;
and this same act has been observed in an elephant in a state of
nature.*(3) I have seen a young orang, when she thought she was
going to be whipped, cover and protect herself with a blanket or
straw. In these several cases stones and sticks were employed as
implements; but they are likewise used as weapons. Brehm*(4) states,
on the authority of the well-known traveller Schimper, that in
Abyssinia when the baboons belonging to one species (C. gelada)
descend in troops from the mountains to plunder the fields, they
sometimes encounter troops of another species (C. hamadryas), and then
a fight ensues. The Geladas roll down great stones, which the
Hamadryas try to avoid, and then both species, making a great
uproar, rush furiously against each other. Brehm, when accompanying
the Duke of Coburg-Gotha, aided in an attack with fire-arms on a troop
of baboons in the pass of Mensa in Abyssinia. The baboons in return
rolled so many stones down the mountain, some as large as a man's
head, that the attackers had to beat a hasty retreat; and the pass was
actually closed for a time against the caravan. It deserves notice
that these baboons thus acted in concert. Mr. Wallace*(5) on three
occasions saw female orangs, accompanied by their young, "breaking off
branches and the great spiny fruit of the Durian tree, with every
appearance of rage; causing such a shower of missiles as effectually
kept us from approaching too near the tree." As I have repeatedly
seen, a chimpanzee will throw any object at hand at a person who
offends him; and the before-mentioned baboon at the Cape of Good
Hope prepared mud for the purpose.
* Savage and Wyman in Boston Journal of Natural History, vol. iv.,
1843-44, p. 383.
*(2) Saugethiere von Paraguay, 1830, ss. 51-56.
*(3) The Indian Field, March 4, 1871.
*(4) Illustriertes Thierleben, B. i., s. 79, 82.
*(5) The Malay Archipelago, vol. i., 1869, p. 87.
In the Zoological Gardens, a monkey, which had weak teeth, used to
break open nuts with a stone; and I was assured by the keepers that
after using the stone, he hid it in the straw, and would not let any
other monkey touch it. Here, then, we have the idea of property; but
this idea is common to every dog with a bone, and to most or all birds
with their nests.
The Duke of Argyll* remarks, that the fashioning of an implement for
a special purpose is absolutely peculiar to man; and he considers that
this forms an immeasurable gulf between him and the brutes. This is no
doubt a very important distinction; but there appears to me much truth
in Sir J. Lubbock's suggestion,*(2) that when primeval man first
used flint-stones for any purpose, he would have accidentally
splintered them, and would then have used the sharp fragments. From
this step it would be a small one to break the flints on purpose,
and not a very wide step to fashion them rudely. This latter
advance, however, may have taken long ages, if we may judge by the
immense interval of time which elapsed before the men of the neolithic
period took to grinding and polishing their stone tools. In breaking
the flints, as Sir J. Lubbock likewise remarks, sparks would have been
emitted, and in grinding them heat would have been evolved: thus the
two usual methods of "obtaining fire may have originated." The
nature of fire would have been known in the many volcanic regions
where lava occasionally flows through forests. The anthropomorphous
apes, guided probably by instinct, build for themselves temporary
platforms; but as many instincts are largely controlled by reason, the
simpler ones, such as this of building a platform, might readily
pass into a voluntary and conscious act. The orang is known to cover
itself at night with the leaves of the pandanus; and Brehm states that
one of his baboons used to protect itself from the heat of the sun
by throwing a straw-mat over its head. In these several habits, we
probably see the first steps towards some of the simpler arts, such as
rude architecture and dress, as they arose amongst the early
progenitors of man.
* Primeval Man, 1869, pp. 145, 147.
*(2) Prehistoric Times, 1865, p. 473, &c.
Abstraction, General Conceptions, Self-consciousness, Mental
Individuality.- It would be very difficult for any one with even
much more knowledge than I possess, to determine how far animals
exhibit any traces of these high mental powers. This difficulty arises
from the impossibility of judging what passes through the mind of an
animal; and again, the fact that writers differ to a great extent in
the meaning which they attribute to the above terms, causes a
further difficulty. If one may judge from various articles which
have been published lately, the greatest stress seems to be laid on
the supposed entire absence in animals of the power of abstraction, or
of forming general concepts. But when a dog sees another dog at a
distance, it is often clear that he perceives that it is a dog in
the abstract; for when he gets nearer his whole manner suddenly
changes if the other dog be a friend. A recent writer remarks, that in
all such cases it is a pure assumption to assert that the mental act
is not essentially of the same nature in the animal as in man. If
either refers what he perceives with his senses to a mental concept,
then so do both.* When I say to my terrier, in an eager voice (and I
have made the trial many times), "Hi, hi, where is it?" she at once
takes it as a sign that something is to be hunted, and generally first
looks quickly all around, and then rushes into the nearest thicket, to
scent for any game, but finding nothing, she looks up into any
neighbouring tree for a squirrel. Now do not these actions clearly
shew that she had in her mind a general idea or concept that some
animal is to be discovered and hunted?
* Mr. Hookham, in a letter to Prof. Max Muller, in the Birmingham
News, May, 1873.
It may be freely admitted that no animal is self-conscious, if by
this term it is implied, that he reflects on such points, as whence he
comes or whither he will go, or what is life and death, and so
forth. But how can we feel sure that an old dog with an excellent
memory and some power of imagination, as shewn by his dreams, never
reflects on his past pleasures or pains in the chase? And this would
be a form of self-consciousness. On the other hand, as Buchner* has
remarked, how little can the hard worked wife of a degraded Australian
savage, who uses very few abstract words, and cannot count above four,
exert her self-consciousness, or reflect on the nature of her own
existence. It is generally admitted, that the higher animals possess
memory, attention, association, and even some imagination and
reason. If these powers, which differ much in different animals, are
capable of improvement, there seems no great improbability in more
complex faculties, such as the higher forms of abstraction, and
self-consciousness, &c., having been evolved through the development
and combination of the simpler ones. It has been urged against the
views here maintained that it is impossible to say at what point in
the ascending scale animals become capable of abstraction, &c.; but
who can say at what age this occurs in our young children? We see at
least that such powers are developed in children by imperceptible
degrees.
* Conferences sur la Theorie Darwinienne, French translat., 1869, p.
132.
That animals retain their mental individuality is unquestionable.
When my voice awakened a train of old associations in the mind of
the before-mentioned dog, he must have retained his mental
individuality, although every atom of his brain had probably undergone
change more than once during the interval of five years. This dog
might have brought forward the argument lately advanced to crush all
evolutionists, and said, "I abide amid all mental moods and all
material changes.... The teaching that atoms leave their impressions
as legacies to other atoms falling into the places they have vacated
is contradictory of the utterance of consciousness, and is therefore
false; but it is the teaching necessitated by evolutionism,
consequently the hypothesis is a false one."*
* The Rev. Dr. J. M'Cann, Anti-Darwinism, 1869, p. 13.
Language.- This faculty has justly been considered as one of the
chief distinctions between man and the lower animals. But man, as a
highly competent judge, Archbishop Whately remarks, "is not the only
animal that can make use of language to express what is passing in his
mind, and can understand, more or less, what is so expressed by
another."* In Paraguay the Cebus azarae when excited utters at least
six distinct sounds, which excite in other monkeys similar
emotions.*(2) The movements of the features and gestures of monkeys
are understood by us, and they partly understand ours, as Rengger
and others declare. It is a more remarkable fact that the dog, since
being domesticated, has learnt to bark*(3) in at least four or five
distinct tones. Although barking is a new art, no doubt the wild
parent-species of the dog expressed their feelings by cries of various
kinds. With the domesticated dog we have the bark of eagerness, as
in the chase; that of anger, as well as growling; the yelp or howl
of despair, as when shut up; the baying at night; the bark of joy,
as when starting on a walk with his master; and the very distinct
one of demand or supplication, as when wishing for a door or window to
be opened. According to Houzeau, who paid particular attention to
the subject, the domestic fowl utters at least a dozen significant
sounds.*(4)
* Quoted in Anthropological Review, 1864, p. 158.
*(2) Rengger, ibid., s. 45.
*(3) See my Variation of Animals and Plants under Domestication,
vol. i., p. 27.
*(4) Facultes Mentales des Animaux, tom. ii., 1872, p. 346-349.
The habitual use of articulate language is, however, peculiar to
man; but he uses, in common with the lower animals, inarticulate cries
to express his meaning, aided by gestures and the movements of the
muscles of the face.* This especially holds good with the more
simple and vivid feelings, which are but little connected with our
higher intelligence. Our cries of pain, fear, surprise, anger,
together with their appropriate actions, and the murmur of a mother to
her beloved child are more expressive than any words. That which
distinguishes man from the lower animals is not the understanding of
articulate sounds, for, as every one knows, dogs understand many words
and sentences. In this respect they are at the same stage of
development as infants, between the ages of ten and twelve months, who
understand many words and short sentences, but cannot yet utter a
single word. It is not the mere articulation which is our
distinguishing character, for parrots and other birds possess this
power. Nor is it the mere capacity of connecting definite sounds
with definite ideas; for it is certain that some parrots, which have
been taught to speak, connect unerringly words with things, and
persons with events.*(2) The lower animals differ from man solely in
his almost infinitely larger power of associating together the most
diversified sounds and ideas; and this obviously depends on the high
development of his mental powers.
* See a discussion on this subject in Mr. E. B. Tylor's very
interesting work, Researches into the Early History of Mankind,
1865, chaps. ii. to iv.
*(2) I have received several detailed accounts to this effect.
Admiral Sir. B. J. Sulivan, whom I know to be a careful observer,
assures me that an African parrot, long kept in his father's house,
invariably called certain persons of the household, as well as
visitors, by their names. He said "good morning" to every one at
breakfast, and "good night" to each as they left the room at night,
and never reversed these salutations. To Sir B. J. Sulivan's father,
he used to add to the " good morning" a short sentence, which was
never once repeated after his father's death. He scolded violently a
strange dog which came into the room through the open window; and he
scolded another parrot (saying "you naughty polly") which had got
out of its cage, and was eating apples on the kitchen table. See also,
to the same effect, Houzeau on parrots, Facultes Mentales, tom. ii.,
p. 309. Dr. A. Moschkau informs me that he knew a starling which never
made a mistake in saying in German " good morning" to persons
arriving, and "good bye, old fellow," to those departing. I could
add several other such cases.
As Horne Tooke, one of the founders of the noble science of
philology, observes, language is an art, like brewing or baking; but
writing would have been a better simile. It certainly is not a true
instinct, for every language has to be learnt. It differs, however,
widely from all ordinary arts, for man has an instinctive tendency
to speak, as we see in the babble of our young children; whilst no
child has an instinctive tendency to brew, bake, or write. Moreover,
no philologist now supposes that any language has been deliberately
invented; it has been slowly and unconsciously developed by many
steps.* The sounds uttered by birds offer in several respects the
nearest analogy to language, for all the members of the same species
utter the same instinctive cries expressive of their emotions; and all
the kinds which sing, exert their power instinctively; but the
actual song, and even the call-notes, are learnt from their parents or
foster-parents. These sounds, as Daines Barrington*(2) has proved,
"are no more innate than language is in man." The first attempts to
sing "may be compared to the imperfect endeavour in a child to
babble." The young males continue practising, or as the
bird-catchers say, "recording," for ten or eleven months. Their
first essays show hardly a rudiment of the future song; but as they
grow older we can perceive what they are aiming at; and at last they
are said "to sing their song round." Nestlings which have learnt the
song of a distinct species, as with the canary-birds educated in the
Tyrol, teach and transmit their new song to their offspring. The
slight natural differences of song in the same species inhabiting
different districts may be appositely compared, as Barrington remarks,
"to provincial dialects"; and the songs of allied, though distinct
species may be compared with the languages of distinct races of man. I
have given the foregoing details to shew that an instinctive
tendency to acquire an art is not peculiar to man.
* See some good remarks on this head by Prof. Whitney, in his
Oriental and Linguistic Studies, 1873, p. 354. He observes that the
desire of communication between man is the living force, which, in the
development of language, "works both consciously and unconsciously;
consciously as regards the immediate end to be attained; unconsciously
as regards the further consequences of the act."
*(2) Hon. Daines Barrington in Philosoph. Transactions, 1773, p.
262. See also Dureau de la Malle, in Ann. des. Sc. Nat., 3rd series,
Zoolog., tom. x., p. 119.
With respect to the origin of articulate language, after having read
on the one side the highly interesting works of Mr. Hensleigh
Wedgwood, the Rev. F. Farrar, and Prof. Schleicher,* and the
celebrated lectures of Prof. Max Muller on the other side, I cannot
doubt that language owes its origin to the imitation and
modification of various natural sounds, the voices of other animals,
and man's own instinctive cries, aided by signs and gestures. When
we treat of sexual selection we shall see that primeval man, or rather
some early progenitor of man, probably first used his voice in
producing true musical cadences, that is in singing, as do some of the
gibbon-apes at the present day; and we may conclude from a
widely-spread analogy, that this power would have been especially
exerted during the courtship of the sexes,- would have expressed
various emotions, such as love, jealousy, triumph,- and would have
served as a challenge to rivals. It is, therefore, probable that the
imitation of musical cries by articulate sounds may have given rise to
words expressive of various complex emotions. The strong tendency in
our nearest allies, the monkeys, in microcephalous idiots,*(2) and
in the barbarous races of mankind, to imitate whatever they hear
deserves notice, as bearing on the subject of imitation. Since monkeys
certainly understand much that is said to them by man, and when
wild, utter signal-cries of danger to their fellows;*(3) and since
fowls give distinct warnings for danger on the ground, or in the sky
from hawks (both, as well as a third cry, intelligible to dogs),*(4)
may not some unusually wise apelike animal have imitated the growl
of a beast of prey, and thus told his fellow-monkeys the nature of the
expected danger? This would have been a first step in the formation of
a language.
* On the Origin of Language, by H. Wedgwood, 1866. Chapters on
Language, by the Rev. F. W. Farrar, 1865. These works are most
interesting. See also De la Phys. et de Parole, par Albert Lemoine,
1865, p. 190. The work on this subject, by the late Prof. Aug.
Schleicher, has been translated by Dr. Bikkers into English, under the
title of Darwinism tested by the Science of Language, 1869.
*(2) Vogt, Memoire sur les Microcephales, 1867, p. 169. With respect
to savages, I have given some facts in my Journal of Researches,
&c., 1845, p. 206.
*(3) See clear evidence on this head in the two works so often
quoted, by Brehm and Rengger.
*(4) Houzeau gives a very curious account of his observations on
this subject in his Facultes Mentales des Animaux, tom. ii., p. 348.
As the voice was used more and more, the vocal organs would have
been strengthened and perfected through the principle of the inherited
effects of use; and this would have reacted on the power of speech.
But the relation between the continued use of language and the
development of the brain, has no doubt been far more important. The
mental powers in some early progenitor of man must have been more
highly developed than in any existing ape, before even the most
imperfect form of speech could have come into use; but we may
confidently believe that the continued use and advancement of this
power would have reacted on the mind itself, by enabling and
encouraging it to carry on long trains of thought. A complex train
of thought can no more be carried on without the aid of words, whether
spoken or silent, than a long calculation without the use of figures
or algebra. It appears, also, that even an ordinary train of thought
almost requires, or is greatly facilitated by some form of language,
for the dumb, deaf, and blind girl, Laura Bridgman, was observed to
use her fingers whilst dreaming.* Nevertheless, a long succession of
vivid and connected ideas may pass through the mind without the aid of
any form of language, as we may infer from the movements of dogs
during their dreams. We have, also, seen that animals are able to
reason to a certain extent, manifestly without the aid of language.
The intimate connection between the brain, as it is now developed in
us, and the faculty of speech, is well shewn by those curious cases of
brain-disease in which speech is specially affected, as when the power
to remember substantives is lost, whilst other words can be
correctly used, or where substantives of a certain class, or all
except the initial letters of substantives and proper names are
forgotten.*(2) There is no more improbability in the continued use
of the mental and vocal organs leading to inherited changes in their
structure and functions, than in the case of hand-writing, which
depends partly on the form of the hand and partly on the disposition
of the mind; and handwriting is certainly inherited.*(3)
* See remarks on this head by Dr. Maudsley, The Physiology and
Pathology of Mind, 2nd ed., 1868, p. 199.
*(2) Many curious cases have been recorded. See, for instance, Dr.
Bateman On Aphasia, 1870, pp. 27, 31, 53, 100, &c. Also, Inquiries
Concerning the Intellectual Powers, by Dr. Abercrombie, 1838, p. 150.
*(3) The Variation of Animals and Plants under Domestication, vol.
ii., p. 6.
Several writers, more especially Prof. Max Muller,* have lately
insisted that the use of language implies the power of forming general
concepts; and that as no animals are supposed to possess this power,
an impassable barrier is formed between them and man.*(2) With respect
to animals, I have already endeavoured to shew that they have this
power, at least in a rude and incipient degree. As far as concerns
infants of from ten to eleven months old, and deaf-mutes, it seems
to me incredible, that they should be able to connect certain sounds
with certain general ideas as quickly as they do, unless such ideas
were already formed in their minds. The same remark may be extended to
the more intelligent animals; as Mr. Leslie Stephen observes,*(3) "A
dog frames a general concept of cats or sheep, and knows the
corresponding words as well as a philosopher. And the capacity to
understand is as good a proof of vocal intelligence, though in an
inferior degree, as the capacity to speak."
* Lectures on Mr. Darwin's Philosophy of Language, 1873.
*(2) The judgment of a distinguished philologist, such as Prof.
Whitney, will have far more weight on this point than anything that
I can say. He remarks (Oriental and Linguistic Studies, 1873, p. 297),
in speaking of Bleek's views: "Because on the grand scale language
is the necessary auxiliary of thought, indispensable to the
development of the power of thinking, to the distinctness and
variety and complexity of cognitions, to the full mastery of
consciousness; therefore he would fain make thought absolutely
impossible without speech, identifying the faculty with its
instrument. He might just as reasonably assert that the human hand
cannot act without a tool. With such a doctrine to start from, he
cannot stop short of Max Muller's worst paradoxes, that an infant
(in fans, not speaking) is not a human being, and that deaf-mutes do
not become possessed of reason until they learn to twist their fingers
into imitation of spoken words." Max Muller gives in italics (Lectures
on Mr. Darwin's Philosophy of Language, 1873, third lecture) this
aphorism: "There is no thought without words, as little as there are
words without thought." What a strange definition must here be given
to the word thought!
*(3) Essays on Free Thinking, &c., 1873, p. 82.
Why the organs now used for speech should have been originally
perfected for this purpose, rather than any other organs, it is not
difficult to see. Ants have considerable powers of inter-communication
by means of their antennae, as shewn by Huber, who devotes a whole
chapter to their language. We might have used our fingers as efficient
instruments, for a person with practice can report to a deaf man every
word of a speech rapidly delivered at a public meeting; but the loss
of our hands, whilst thus employed, would have been a serious
inconvenience. As all the higher mammals possess vocal organs,
constructed on the same general plan as ours, and used as a means of
communication, it was obviously probable that these same organs
would be still further developed if the power of communication had
to be improved; and this has been effected by the aid of adjoining and
well adapted parts, namely the tongue and lips.* The fact of the
higher apes not using their vocal organs for speech, no doubt
depends on their intelligence not having been sufficiently advanced.
The possession by them of organs, which with long-continued practice
might have been used for speech, although not thus used, is paralleled
by the case of many birds which possess organs fitted for singing,
though they never sing. Thus, the nightingale and crow have vocal
organs similarly constructed, these being used by the former for
diversified song, and by the latter only for croaking.*(2) If it be
asked why apes have not had their intellects developed to the same
degree as that of man, general causes only can be assigned in
answer, and it is unreasonable to expect any thing more definite,
considering our ignorance with respect to the successive stages of
development through which each creature has passed.
* See some good remarks to this effect by Dr. Maudsley, The
Physiology and Pathology of Mind, 1868, p. 199.
*(2) Macgillivray, Hist. of British Birds, vol. ii., 1839, p. 29. An
excellent observer, Mr. Blackwall remarks that the magpie learns to
pronounce single words, and even short sentences, more readily than
almost any other British bird; yet, as he adds, after long and closely
investigating its habits, he has never known it, in a state of nature,
display any unusual capacity for imitation. Researches in Zoology,
1834, p. 158.
The formation of different languages and of distinct species, and
the proofs that both have been developed through a gradual process,
are curiously parallel.* But we can trace the formation of many
words further back than that of species, for we can perceive how
they actually arose from the imitation of various sounds. We find in
distinct languages striking homologies due to community of descent,
and analogies due to a similar process of formation. The manner in
which certain letters or sounds change when others change is very like
correlated growth. We have in both cases the re-duplication of
parts, the effects of long-continued use, and so forth. The frequent
presence of rudiments, both in languages and in species, is still more
remarkable. The letter m in the word am, means I; so that in the
expression I am, a superfluous and useless rudiment has been retained.
In the spelling also of words, letters often remain as the rudiments
of ancient forms of pronunciation. Languages, like organic beings, can
be classed in groups under groups; and they can be classed either
naturally according to descent, or artificially by other characters.
Dominant languages and dialects spread widely, and lead to the gradual
extinction of other tongues. A language, like a species, when once
extinct, never, as Sir C. Lyell remarks, reappears. The same
language never has two birth-places. Distinct languages may be crossed
or blended together.*(2) We see variability in every tongue, and new
words are continually cropping up; but as there is a limit to the
powers of the memory, single words, like whole languages, gradually
become extinct. As Max Muller*(3) has well remarked:- "A struggle
for life is constantly going on amongst the words and grammatical
forms in each language. The better, the shorter, the easier forms
are constantly gaining the upper hand, and they owe their success to
their own inherent virtue." To these more important causes of the
survival of certain words, mere novelty and fashion may be added;
for there is in the mind of man a strong love for slight changes in
all things. The survival or preservation of certain favoured words
in the struggle for existence is natural selection.
* See the very interesting parallelism between the development of
species and languages, given by Sir C. Lyell in The Geological
Evidences of the Antiquity of Man, 1863, chap. xxiii.
*(2) See remarks to this effect by the Rev. F. W. Farrar, in an
interesting article, entitled Philology and Darwinism," in Nature,
March 24, 1870, p. 528.
*(3) Nature, January 6, 1870, p. 257.
The perfectly regular and wonderfully complex construction of the
languages of many barbarous nations has often been advanced as a
proof, either of the divine origin of these languages, or of the
high art and former civilisation of their founders. Thus F. von
Schlegel writes: "In those languages which appear to be at the
lowest grade of intellectual culture, we frequently observe a very
high and elaborate degree of art in their grammatical structure.
This is especially the case with the Basque and the Lapponian, and
many of the American languages."* But it is assuredly an error to
speak of any language as an art, in the sense of its having been
elaborately and methodically formed. Philologists now admit that
conjugations, declensions, &c., originally existed as distinct
words, since joined together; and as such words express the most
obvious relations between objects and persons, it is not surprising
that they should have been used by the men of most races during the
earliest ages. With respect to perfection, the following
illustration will best shew how easily we may err: a crinoid sometimes
consists of no less than 150,000 pieces of shell,*(2) all arranged
with perfect symmetry in radiating lines; but a naturalist does not
consider an animal of this kind as more perfect than a bilateral one
with comparatively few parts, and with none of these parts alike,
excepting on the opposite sides of the body. He justly considers the
differentiation and specialisation of organs as the test of
perfection. So with languages: the most symmetrical and complex
ought not to be ranked above irregular, abbreviated, and bastardised
languages, which have borrowed expressive words and useful forms of
construction from various conquering, conquered, or immigrant races.
* Quoted by C. S. Wake, Chapters on Man, 1868, p. 101.
*(2) Buckland, Bridgewater Treatise, p. 411.
From these few and imperfect remarks I conclude that the extremely
complex and regular construction of many barbarous languages, is no
proof that they owe their origin to a special act of creation.* Nor,
as we have seen, does the faculty of articulate speech in itself offer
any insuperable objection to the belief that man has been developed
from some lower form.
* See some good remarks on the simplification of languages, by Sir
J. Lubbock, Origin of Civilisation, 1870, p. 278.
Sense of Beauty.- This sense has been declared to be peculiar to
man. I refer here only to the pleasure given by certain colours,
forms, and sounds, and which may fairly be called a sense of the
beautiful; with cultivated men such sensations are, however,
intimately associated with complex ideas and trains of thought. When
we behold a male bird elaborately displaying his graceful plumes or
splendid colours before the female, whilst other birds, not thus
decorated, make no such display, it is impossible to doubt that she
admires the beauty of her male partner. As women everywhere deck
themselves with these plumes, the beauty of such ornaments cannot be
disputed. As we shall see later, the nests of humming-birds, and the
playing passages of bower-birds are tastefully ornamented with
gaily-coloured objects; and this shews that they must receive some
kind of pleasure from the sight of such things. With the great
majority of animals, however, the taste for the beautiful is confined,
as far as we can judge, to the attractions of the opposite sex. The
sweet strains poured forth by many male birds during the season of
love, are certainly admired by the females, of which fact evidence
will hereafter be given. If female birds had been incapable of
appreciating the beautiful colours, the ornaments, and voices of their
male partners, all the labour and anxiety exhibited by the latter in
displaying their charms before the females would have been thrown
away; and this it is impossible to admit. Why certain bright colours
should excite pleasure cannot, I presume, be explained, any more
than why certain flavours and scents are agreeable; but habit has
something to do with the result, for that which is at first unpleasant
to our senses, ultimately becomes pleasant, and habits are
inherited. With respect to sounds, Helmholtz has explained to a
certain extent on physiological principles, why harmonies and
certain cadences are agreeable. But besides this, sounds frequently
recurring at irregular intervals are highly disagreeable, as every one
will admit who has listened at night to the irregular flapping of a
rope on board ship. The same principle seems to come into play with
vision, as the eye prefers symmetry or figures with some regular
recurrence. Patterns of this kind are employed by even the lowest
savages as ornaments; and they have been developed through sexual
selection for the adornment of some male animals. Whether we can or
not give any reason for the pleasure thus derived from vision and
hearing, yet man and many of the lower animals are alike pleased by
the same colours, graceful shading and forms, and the same sounds.
The taste for the beautiful, at least as far as female beauty is
concerned, is not of a special nature in the human mind; for it
differs widely in the different races of man, and is not quite the
same even in the different nations of the same race. Judging from
the hideous ornaments, and the equally hideous music admired by most
savages, it might be urged that their Aesthetic faculty was not so
highly developed as in certain animals, for instance, as in birds.
Obviously no animal would be capable of admiring such scenes as the
heavens at night, a beautiful landscape, or refined music; but such
high tastes are acquired through culture, and depend on complex
associations; they are not enjoyed by barbarians or by uneducated
persons.
Many of the faculties, which have been of inestimable service to man
for his progressive advancement, such as the powers of the
imagination, wonder, curiosity, an undefined sense of beauty, a
tendency to imitation, and the love of excitement or novelty, could
hardly fail to lead to capricious changes of customs and fashions. I
have alluded to this point, because a recent writer* has oddly fixed
on Caprice "as one of the most remarkable and typical differences
between savages and brutes." But not only can we partially
understand how it is that man is from various conflicting influences
rendered capricious, but that the lower animals are, as we shall
hereafter see, likewise capricious in their affections, aversions, and
sense of beauty. There is also reason to suspect that they love
novelty, for its own sake.
* The Spectator, Dec. 4. 1869, p. 1430.
Belief in God- Religion.- There is no evidence that man was
aboriginally endowed with the ennobling belief in the existence of
an Omnipotent God. On the contrary there is ample evidence, derived
not from hasty travellers, but from men who have long resided with
savages, that numerous races have existed, and still exist, who have
no idea of one or more gods, and who have no words in their
languages to express such an idea.* The question is of course wholly
distinct from that higher one, whether there exists a Creator and
Ruler of the universe; and this has been answered in the affirmative
by some of the highest intellects that have ever existed.
* See an excellent article on this subject by the Rev. F. W. Farrar,
in the Anthropological Review, Aug., 1864, p. ccxvii. For further
facts see Sir J. Lubbock, Prehistoric Times, 2nd ed., 1869, p. 564;
and especially the chapters on Religion in his Origin of Civilisation,
1870.
If, however, we include under the term "religion" the belief in
unseen or spiritual agencies the case is wholly different; for this
belief seems to be universal with the less civilised races. Nor is
it difficult to comprehend how it arose. As soon as the important
faculties of the imagination, wonder, and curiosity, together with
some power of reasoning, had become partially developed, man would
naturally crave to understand what was passing around him, and would
have vaguely speculated on his own existence. As Mr. M'Lennan* has
remarked, "Some explanation of the phenomena of life, a man must feign
for himself, and to judge from the universality of it, the simplest
hypothesis, and the first to occur to men, seems to have been that
natural phenomena are ascribable to the presence in animals, plants,
and things, and in the forces of nature, of such spirits prompting
to action as men are conscious they themselves possess." It is also
probable, as Mr. Tylor has shewn, that dreams may have first given
rise to the notion of spirits; for savages do not readily
distinguish between subjective and objective impressions. When a
savage dreams, the figures which appear before him are believed to
have come from a distance, and to stand over him; or "the soul of
the dreamer goes out on its travels, and comes home with a remembrance
of what it has seen."*(2) But until the faculties of imagination,
curiosity, reason, &c., had been fairly well developed in the mind
of man, his dreams would not have led him to believe in spirits, any
more than in the case of a dog.
* "The Worship of Animals and Plants," in the Fortnightly Review,
Oct. 1, 1869, p. 422.
*(2) Tylor, Early History of Mankind, 1865, p. 6. See also the three
striking chapters on the "Development of Religion," in Lubbock's
Origin of Civilisation, 1870. In a like manner Mr. Herbert Spencer, in
his ingenious essay in the Fortnightly Review (May 1, 1870, p. 535),
accounts for the earliest forms of religious belief throughout the
world, by man being led through dreams, shadows, and other causes,
to look at himself as a double essence, corporeal and spiritual. As
the spiritual being is supposed to exist after death and to be
powerful, it is propitiated by various gifts and ceremonies, and its
aid invoked. He then further shews that names or nicknames given
from some animal or other object, to the early progenitors or founders
of a tribe, are supposed after a long interval to represent the real
progenitor of the tribe; and such animal or object is then naturally
believed still to exist as a spirit, is held sacred, and worshipped as
a god. Nevertheless I cannot but suspect that there is a still earlier
and ruder stage, when anything which manifests power or movement is
thought to be endowed with some form of life, and with mental
faculties analogous to our own.
The tendency in savages to imagine that natural objects and agencies
are animated by spiritual or living essences, is perhaps illustrated
by a little fact which I once noticed: my dog, a full-grown and very
sensible animal, was lying on the lawn during a hot and still day; but
at a little distance a slight breeze occasionally moved an open
parasol, which would have been wholly disregarded by the dog, had
any one stood near it. As it was, every time that the parasol slightly
moved, the dog growled fiercely and barked. He must, I think, have
reasoned to himself in a rapid and unconscious manner, that movement
without any apparent cause indicated the presence of some strange
living agent, and that no stranger had a right to be on his territory.
The belief in spiritual agencies would easily pass into the belief
in the existence of one or more gods. For savages would naturally
attribute to spirits the same passions, the same love of vengeance
or simplest form of justice, and the same affections which they
themselves feel. The Fuegians appear to be in this respect in an
intermediate condition, for when the surgeon on board the Beagle
shot some young ducklings as specimens, York Minster declared in the
most solemn manner, "Oh, Mr. Bynoe, much rain, much snow, blow
much"; and this was evidently a retributive punishment for wasting
human food. So again he related how, when his brother killed a "wild
man," storms long raged, much rain and snow fell. Yet we could never
discover that the Fuegians believed in what we should call a God, or
practised any religious rites; and Jemmy Button, with justifiable
pride, stoutly maintained that there was no devil in his land. This
latter assertion is the more remarkable, as with savages the belief in
bad spirits is far more common than that in good ones.
The feeling of religious devotion is a highly complex one,
consisting of love, complete submission to an exalted and mysterious
superior, a strong sense of dependence,* fear, reverence, gratitude,
hope for the future, and perhaps other elements. No being could
experience so complex an emotion until advanced in his intellectual
and moral faculties to at least a moderately high level. Nevertheless,
we see some distant approach to this state of mind in the deep love of
a dog for his master, associated with complete submission, some
fear, and perhaps other feelings. The behaviour of a dog when
returning to his master after an absence, and, as I may add, of a
monkey to his beloved keeper, is widely different from that towards
their fellows. In the latter case the transports of joy appear to be
somewhat less, and the sense of equality is shewn in every action.
Professor Braubach goes so far as to maintain that a dog looks on
his master as on a god.*(2)
* See an able article on the "Physical Elements of Religion," by Mr.
L. Owen Pike, in Anthropological Review, April, 1870, p. lxiii.
*(2) Religion, Moral, &c., der Darwin'schen Art-Lehre, 1869, s.
53. It is said (Dr. W. Lauder Lindsay, Journal of Mental Science,
1871, p. 43), that Bacon long ago, and the poet Burns, held the same
notion.
The same high mental faculties which first led man to believe in
unseen spiritual agencies, then in fetishism, polytheism, and
ultimately in monotheism, would infallibly lead him, as long as his
reasoning powers remained poorly developed, to various strange
superstitions and customs. Many of these are terrible to think of-
such as the sacrifice of human beings to a blood-loving god; the trial
of innocent persons by the ordeal of poison or fire; witchcraft,
&c.- yet it is well occasionally to reflect on these superstitions,
for they shew us what an infinite debt of gratitude we owe to the
improvement of our reason, to science, and to our accumulated
knowledge. As Sir J. Lubbock* has well observed, "it is not too much
to say that the horrible dread of unknown evil hangs like a thick
cloud over savage life, and embitters every pleasure." These miserable
and indirect consequences of our highest faculties may be compared
with the incidental and occasional mistakes of the instincts of the
lower animals.
* Prehistoric Times, 2nd ed., p. 571. In this work (p. 571) there
will be found an excellent account of the many strange and
capricious customs of savages.
CHAPTER IV.
COMPARISON OF THE MENTAL POWERS OF MAN AND THE
LOWER ANIMALS (Continued).
I FULLY subscribe to the judgment of those writers* who maintain
that of all the differences between man and the lower animals, the
moral sense or conscience is by far the most important. This sense, as
Mackintosh*(2) remarks, "has a rightful supremacy over every other
principle of human action"; it is summed up in that short but
imperious word ought, so full of high significance. It is the most
noble of all the attributes of man, leading him without a moment's
hesitation to risk his life for that of a fellow-creature; or after
due deliberation, impelled simply by the deep feeling of right or
duty, to sacrifice it in some great cause. Immanuel Kant exclaims,
"Duty! Wondrous thought, that workest neither by fond insinuation,
flattery, nor by any threat, but merely by holding up thy naked law in
the soul, and so extorting for thyself always reverence, if not always
obedience; before whom all appetites are dumb, however secretly they
rebel; whence thy original?"*(3)
* See, for instance, on this subject, Quatrefages, Unite de l'Espece
Humaine, 1861, p. 21, &c.
*(2) Dissertation an Ethical Philosophy, 1837, p. 231, &c.
*(3) Metaphysics of Ethics translated by J. W. Semple, Edinburgh,
1836, p. 136.
This great question has been discussed by many writers* of
consummate ability; and my sole excuse for touching on it, is the
impossibility of here passing it over; and because, as far as I
know, no one has approached it exclusively from the side of natural
history. The investigation possesses, also, some independent interest,
as an attempt to see how far the study of the lower animals throws
light on one of the highest psychical faculties of man.
* Mr. Bain gives a list (Mental and Moral Science, 1868, pp.
543-725) of twenty-six British authors who have written on this
subject, and whose names are familiar to every reader; to these, Mr.
Bain's own name, and those of Mr. Lecky, Mr. Shadworth Hodgson, Sir J.
Lubbock, and others, might be added.
The following proposition seems to me in a high degree probable-
namely, that any animal whatever, endowed with well-marked social
instincts,* the parental and filial affections being here included,
would inevitably acquire a moral sense or conscience, as soon as its
intellectual powers had become as well, or nearly as well developed,
as in man. For, firstly, the social instincts lead an animal to take
pleasure in the society of its fellows, to feel a certain amount of
sympathy with them, and to perform various services for them. The
services may be of a definite and evidently instinctive nature; or
there may be only a wish and readiness, as with most of the higher
social animals, to aid their fellows in certain general ways. But
these feelings and services are by no means extended to all the
individuals of the same species, only to those of the same
association. Secondly, as soon as the mental faculties had become
highly developed, images of all past actions and motives would be
incessantly passing through the brain of each individual: and that
feeling of dissatisfaction, or even misery, which invariably
results, as we shall hereafter see, from any unsatisfied instinct,
would arise, as often as it was perceived that the enduring and always
present social instinct had yielded to some other instinct, at the
time stronger, but neither enduring in its nature, nor leaving
behind it a very vivid impression. It is clear that many instinctive
desires, such as that of hunger, are in their nature of short
duration; and after being satisfied, are not readily or vividly
recalled. Thirdly, after the power of language had been acquired,
and the wishes of the community could be expressed, the common opinion
how each member ought to act for the public good, would naturally
become in a paramount degree the guide to action. But it should be
borne in mind that however great weight we may attribute to public
opinion, our regard for the approbation and disapprobation of our
fellows depends on sympathy, which, as we shall see, forms an
essential part of the social instinct, and is indeed its
foundation-stone. Lastly, habit in the individual would ultimately
play a very important part in guiding the conduct of each member;
for the social instinct, together with sympathy, is, like any other
instinct, greatly strengthened by habit, and so consequently would
be obedience to the wishes and judgment of the community. These
several subordinate propositions must now be discussed, and some of
them at considerable length.
* Sir B. Brodie, after observing that man is a social animal
(Psychological Enquiries, 1854, p. 192), asks the pregnant question,
"Ought not this to settle the disputed question as to the existence of
a moral sense?" Similar ideas have probably occurred to many
persons, as they did long ago to Marcus Aurelius. Mr. J. S. Mill
speaks, in his celebrated work, Utilitarianism, pp. 459, 460, of the
social feelings as a "powerful natural sentiment," and as "the natural
basis of sentiment for utilitarian morality." Again he says, "Like the
other acquired capacities above referred to, the moral faculty, if not
a part of our nature, is a natural out-growth from it; capable, like
them, in a certain small degree of springing up spontaneously." But in
opposition to all this, he also remarks, "If, as in my own belief, the
moral feelings are not innate, but acquired, they are not for that
reason less natural." It is with hesitation that I venture to differ
at all from so profound a thinker, but it can hardly be disputed
that the social feelings are instinctive or innate in the lower
animals; and why should they not be so in man? Mr. Bain (see, for
instance, The Emotions and the Will, 1865, p. 481) and others
believe that the moral sense is acquired by each individual during his
lifetime. On the general theory of evolution this is at least
extremely improbable. The ignoring of all transmitted mental qualities
will, as it seems to me, be hereafter judged as a most serious blemish
in the works of Mr. Mill.
It may be well first to premise that I do not wish to maintain
that any strictly social animal, if its intellectual faculties were to
become as active and as highly developed as in man, would acquire
exactly the same moral sense as ours. In the same manner as various
animals have some sense of beauty, though they admire widely-different
objects, so they might have a sense of right and wrong, though led
by it to follow widely different lines of conduct. If, for instance,
to take an extreme case, men were reared under precisely the same
conditions as hive-bees, there can hardly be a doubt that our
unmarried females would, like the worker-bees, think it a sacred
duty to kill their brothers, and mothers would strive to kill their
fertile daughters; and no one would think of interfering.*
Nevertheless, the bee, or any other social animal, would gain in our
supposed case, as it appears to me, some feeling of right or wrong, or
a conscience. For each individual would have an inward sense of
possessing certain stronger or more enduring instincts, and others
less strong or enduring; so that there would often be a struggle as to
which impulse should be followed; and satisfaction, dissatisfaction,
or even misery would be felt, as past impressions were compared during
their incessant passage through the mind. In this case an inward
monitor would tell the animal that it would have been better to have
followed the one impulse rather than the other. The one course ought
to have been followed, and the other ought not; the one would have
been right and the other wrong; but to these terms I shall recur.
Mr. H. Sidgwick remarks, in an able discussion on this subject
(the Academy, June 15, 1872, p. 231), "A superior bee, we may feel
sure, would aspire to a milder solution of the popular question."
Judging, however, from the habits of many or most savages, man
solves the problem by female infanticide, polyandry and promiscuous
intercourse; therefore it may well be doubted whether it would be by a
milder method. Miss Cobbe, in commenting ("Darwinism in Morals,"
Theological Review, April, 1872, pp. 188-191) on the same
illustration, says, the principles of social duty would be thus
reversed; and by this, I presume, she means that the fulfillment of
a social duty would tend to the injury of individuals; but she
overlooks the fact, which she would doubtless admit, that the
instincts of the bee have been acquired for the good of the community.
She goes so far as to say that if the theory of ethics advocated in
this chapter were ever generally accepted, "I cannot but believe
that in the hour of their triumph would be sounded the knell of the
virtue of mankind!" It is to be hoped that the belief in the
permanence of virtue on this earth is not held by many persons on so
weak a tenure.
Sociability.- Animals of many kinds are social; we find even
distinct species living together; for example, some American
monkeys; and united flocks of rooks, jackdaws, and starlings. Man
shews the same feeling in his strong love for the dog, which the dog
returns with interest. Every one must have noticed how miserable
horses, dogs, sheep, &c., are when separated from their companions,
and what strong mutual affection the two former kinds, at least,
shew on their reunion. It is curious to speculate on the feelings of a
dog, who will rest peacefully for hours in a room with his master or
any of the family, without the least notice being taken of him; but if
left for a short time by himself, barks or howls dismally. We will
confine our attention to the higher social animals; and pass over
insects, although some of these are social, and aid one another in
many important ways. The most common mutual service in the higher
animals is to warn one another of danger by means of the united senses
of all. Every sportsman knows, as Dr. Jaeger remarks,* how difficult
it is to approach animals in a herd or troop. Wild horses and cattle
do not, I believe, make any danger-signal; but the attitude of any one
of them who first discovers an enemy, warns the others. Rabbits
stamp loudly on the ground with their hindfeet as a signal: sheep
and chamois do the same with their forefeet, uttering likewise a
whistle. Many birds, and some mammals, post sentinels, which in the
case of seals are said*(2) generally to be the females. The leader
of a troop of monkeys acts as the sentinel, and utters cries
expressive both of danger and of safety.*(3) Social animals perform
many little services for each other: horses nibble, and cows lick each
other, on any spot which itches: monkeys search each other for
external parasites; and Brehm states that after a troop of the
Cercopithecus griseoviridis has rushed through a thorny brake, each
monkey stretches itself on a branch, and another monkey sitting by,
"conscientiously" examines its fur, and extracts every thorn or burr.
* Die Darwin'sche Theorie, s. 101.
*(2) Mr. R. Brown in Proc. Zoolog. Soc., 1868, p. 409.
*(3) Brehm, Illustriertes Thierleben, B. i., 1864, ss. 52, 79. For
the case of the monkeys extracting thorns from each other, see s.
54. With respect to the Hamadryas turning over stones, the fact is
given (s. 76), on the evidence of Alvarez, whose observations Brehm
thinks quite trustworthy. For the cases of the old male baboons
attacking the dogs, see s. 79; and with respect to the eagle, s. 56.
Animals also render more important services to one another: thus
wolves and some other beasts of prey hunt in packs, and aid one
another in attacking their victims. Pelicans fish in concert. The
Hamadryas baboons turn over stones to find insects, &c.; and when they
come to a large one, as many as can stand round, turn it over together
and share the booty. Social animals mutually defend each other. Bull
bisons in N. America, when there is danger, drive the cows and
calves into the middle of the herd, whilst they defend the outside.
I shall also in a future chapter give an account of two young wild
bulls at Chillingham attacking an old one in concert, and of two
stallions together trying to drive away a third stallion from a
troop of mares. In Abyssinia, Brehm encountered a great troop of
baboons who were crossing a valley; some had already ascended the
opposite mountain, and some were still in the valley; the latter
were attacked by the dogs, but the old males immediately hurried
down from the rocks, and with mouths widely opened, roared so
fearfully, that the dogs quickly drew back. They were again encouraged
to the attack; but by this time all the baboons had reascended the
heights, excepting a young one, about six months old, who, loudly
calling for aid, climbed on a block of rock, and was surrounded. Now
one of the largest males, a true hero, came down again from the
mountain, slowly went to the young one, coaxed him, and triumphantly
led him away- the dogs being too much astonished to make an attack.
I cannot resist giving another scene which was witnessed by this
same naturalist; an eagle seized a young Cercopithecus, which, by
clinging to a branch, was not at once carried off; it cried loudly for
assistance, upon which the other members of the troop, with much
uproar, rushed to the rescue, surrounded the eagle, and pulled out
so many feathers, that he no longer thought of his prey, but only
how to escape. This eagle, as Brehm remarks, assuredly would never
again attack a single monkey of a troop.*
* Mr. Belt gives the case of a spider-monkey (Ateles) in
Nicaragua, which was heard screaming for nearly two hours in the
forest, and was found with an eagle perched close by it. The bird
apparently feared to attack as long as it remained face to face; and
Mr. Belt believes, from what he has seen of the habits of these
monkeys, that they protect themselves from eagles by keeping two or
three together. The Naturalist in Nicaragua, 1874, p. 118.
It is certain that associated animals have a feeling of love for
each other, which is not felt by non-social adult animals. How far
in most cases they actually sympathise in the pains and pleasures of
others, is more doubtful, especially with respect to pleasures. Mr.
Buxton, however, who had excellent means of observation,* states
that his macaws, which lived free in Norfolk, took "an extravagant
interest" in a pair with a nest; and whenever the female left it,
she was surrounded by a troop "screaming horrible acclamations in
her honour." It is often difficult to judge whether animals have any
feeling for the sufferings of others of their kind. Who can say what
cows feel, when they surround and stare intently on a dying or dead
companion; apparently, however, as Houzeau remarks, they feel no pity.
That animals sometimes are far from feeling any sympathy is too
certain; for they will expel a wounded animal from the herd, or gore
or worry it to death. This is almost the blackest fact in natural
history, unless, indeed, the explanation which has been suggested is
true, that their instinct or reason leads them to expel an injured
companion, lest beasts of prey, including man, should be tempted to
follow the troop. In this case their conduct is not much worse than
that of the North American Indians, who leave their feeble comrades to
perish on the plains; or the Fijians, who, when their parents get old,
or fall ill, bury them alive.*(2)
* Annals and Magazine of Natural History, November, 1868, p. 382.
*(2) Sir J. Lubbock, Prehistoric Times, 2nd ed., p. 446.
Many animals, however, certainly sympathise with each other's
distress or danger. This is the case even with birds. Captain
Stansbury* found on a salt lake in Utah an old and completely blind
pelican, which was very fat, and must have been well fed for a long
time by his companions. Mr. Blyth, as he informs me, saw Indian
crows feeding two or three of their companions which were blind; and I
have heard of an analogous case with the domestic cock. We may, if
we choose, call these actions instinctive; but such cases are much too
rare for the development of any special instinct.*(2) I have myself
seen a dog, who never passed a cat who lay sick in a basket, and was a
great friend of his, without giving her a few licks with his tongue,
the surest sign of kind feeling in a dog.
* As quoted by Mr. L. H. Morgan, The American Beaver, 1868, p.
272. Capt. Stansbury also gives an interesting account of the manner
in which a very young pelican, carried away by a strong stream, was
guided and encouraged in its attempts to reach the shore by half a
dozen old birds.
*(2) As Mr. Bain states, "Effective aid to a sufferer springs from
sympathy proper": Mental and Moral Science, 1868, p. 245.
It must be called sympathy that leads a courageous dog to fly at any
one who strikes his master, as he certainly will. I saw a person
pretending to beat a lady, who had a very timid little dog on her lap,
and the trial had never been made before; the little creature
instantly jumped away, but after the pretended beating was over, it
was really pathetic to see how perseveringly he tried to lick his
mistress's face, and comfort her. Brehm* states that when a baboon
in confinement was pursued to be punished, the others tried to protect
him. It must have been sympathy in the cases above given which led the
baboons and Cercopitheci to defend their young comrades from the
dogs and the eagle. I will give only one other instance of sympathetic
and heroic conduct, in the case of a little American monkey. Several
years ago a keeper at the Zoological Gardens showed me some deep and
scarcely healed wounds on the nape of his own neck, inflicted on
him, whilst kneeling on the floor, by a fierce baboon. The little
American monkey, who was a warm friend of this keeper, lived in the
same compartment, and was dreadfully afraid of the great baboon.
Nevertheless, as soon as he saw his friend in peril, he rushed to
the rescue, and by screams and bites so distracted the baboon that the
man was able to escape, after, as the surgeon thought, running great
risk of his life.
* Illustriertes Thierleben, B. i., s. 85.
Besides love and sympathy, animals exhibit other qualities connected
with the social instincts, which in us would be called moral; and I
agree with Agassiz* that dogs possess something very like a
conscience.
* De l'Espece et de la Classe, 1869, p. 97.
Dogs possess some power of self-command, and this does not appear to
be wholly the result of fear. As Braubach* remarks, they will
refrain from stealing food in the absence of their master. They have
long been accepted as the very type of fidelity and obedience. But the
elephant is likewise very faithful to his driver or keeper, and
probably considers him as the leader of the herd. Dr. Hooker informs
me that an elephant, which he was riding in India, became so deeply
bogged that he remained stuck fast until the next day, when he was
extricated by men with ropes. Under such circumstances elephants
will seize with their trunks any object, dead or alive, to place under
their knees, to prevent their sinking deeper in the mud; and the
driver was dreadfully afraid lest the animal should have seized Dr.
Hooker and crushed him to death. But the driver himself, as Dr. Hooker
was assured, ran no risk. This forbearance under an emergency so
dreadful for a heavy animal, is a wonderful proof of noble
fidelity.*(2)
* Die Darwin'sche Art-Lehre, 1869, s. 54.
*(2) See also Hooker's Himalayan Journals, vol. ii., 1854, p. 333.
All animals living in a body, which defend themselves or attack
their enemies in concert, must indeed be in some degree faithful to
one another; and those that follow a leader must be in some degree
obedient. When the baboons in Abyssinia* plunder a garden, they
silently follow their leader; and if an imprudent young animal makes a
noise, he receives a slap from the others to teach him silence and
obedience. Mr. Galton, who has had excellent opportunities for
observing the half-wild cattle in S. Africa, says,*(2) that they
cannot endure even a momentary separation from the herd. They are
essentially slavish, and accept the common determination, seeking no
better lot than to be led by any one ox who has enough self-reliance
to accept the position. The men who break in these animals for
harness, watch assiduously for those who, by grazing apart, shew a
self-reliant disposition, and these they train as fore-oxen. Mr.
Galton adds that such animals are rare and valuable; and if many
were born they would soon be eliminated, as lions are always on the
look-out for the individuals which wander from the herd.
* Brehm, Illustriertes Thierleben, B. i., s. 76
*(2) See his extremely interesting paper on "Gregariousness in
Cattle, and in Man," Macmillan's Magazine, Feb., 1871, p. 353.
With respect to the impulse which leads certain animals to associate
together, and to aid one another in many ways, we may infer that in
most cases they are impelled by the same sense of satisfaction or
pleasure which they experience in performing other instinctive
actions; or by the same sense of dissatisfaction as when other
instinctive actions are checked. We see this in innumerable instances,
and it is illustrated in a striking manner by the acquired instincts
of our domesticated animals; thus a young shepherd-dog delights in
driving and running round a flock of sheep, but not in worrying
them; a young fox-hound delights in hunting a fox, whilst some other
kinds of dogs, as I have witnessed, utterly disregard foxes. What a
strong feeling of inward satisfaction must impel a bird, so full of
activity, to brood day after day over her eggs. Migratory birds are
quite miserable if stopped from migrating; perhaps they enjoy starting
on their long flight; but it is hard to believe that the poor pinioned
goose, described by Audubon, which started on foot at the proper
time for its journey of probably more than a thousand miles, could
have felt any joy in doing so. Some instincts are determined solely by
painful feelings, as by fear, which leads to self-preservation, and is
in some cases directed towards special enemies. No one, I presume, can
analyse the sensations of pleasure or pain. In many instances,
however, it is probable that instincts are persistently followed
from the mere force of inheritance, without the stimulus of either
pleasure or pain. A young pointer, when it first scents game,
apparently cannot help pointing. A squirrel in a cage who pats the
nuts which it cannot eat, as if to bury them in the ground, can hardly
be thought to act thus, either from pleasure or pain. Hence the common
assumption that men must be impelled to every action by experiencing
some pleasure or pain may be erroneous. Although a habit may be
blindly and implicitly followed, independently of any pleasure or pain
felt at the moment, yet if it be forcibly and abruptly checked, a
vague sense of dissatisfaction is generally experienced.
It has often been assumed that animals were in the first place
rendered social, and that they feel as a consequence uncomfortable
when separated from each other, and comfortable whilst together; but
it is a more probable view that these sensations were first developed,
in order that those animals which would profit by living in society,
should be induced to live together, in the same manner as the sense of
hunger and the pleasure of eating were, no doubt, first acquired in
order to induce animals to eat. The feeling of pleasure from society
is probably an extension of the parental or filial affections, since
the social instinct seems to be developed by the young remaining for a
long time with their parents; and this extension may be attributed
in part to habit, but chiefly to natural selection. With those animals
which were benefited by living in close association, the individuals
which took the greatest pleasure in society would best escape
various dangers, whilst those that cared least for their comrades, and
lived solitary, would perish in greater numbers. With respect to the
origin of the parental and filial affections, which apparently lie
at the base of the social instincts, we know not the steps by which
they have been gained; but we may infer that it has been to a large
extent through natural selection. So it has almost certainly been with
the unusual and opposite feeling of hatred between the nearest
relations, as with the worker-bees which kill their brother drones,
and with the queen-bees which kill their daughter-queens; the desire
to destroy their nearest relations having been in this case of service
to the community. Parental affection, or some feeling which replaces
it, has been developed in certain animals extremely low in the
scale, for example, in star-fishes and spiders. It is also
occasionally present in a few members alone in a whole group of
animals, as in the genus Forficula, or earwigs.
The all-important emotion of sympathy is distinct from that of love.
A mother may passionately love her sleeping and passive infant, but
she can hardly at such times be said to feel sympathy for it. The love
of a man for his dog is distinct from sympathy, and so is that of a
dog for his master. Adam Smith formerly argued, as has Mr. Bain
recently, that the basis of sympathy lies in our strong
retentiveness of former states of pain or pleasure. Hence, "the
sight of another person enduring hunger, cold, fatigue, revives in
us some recollection of these states, which are painful even in idea."
We are thus impelled to relieve the sufferings of another, in order
that our own painful feelings may be at the same time relieved. In
like manner we are led to participate in the pleasures of others.* But
I cannot see how this view explains the fact that sympathy is excited,
in an immeasurably stronger degree, by a beloved, than by an
indifferent person. The mere sight of suffering, independently of
love, would suffice to call up in us vivid recollections and
associations. The explanation may lie in the fact that, with all
animals, sympathy is directed solely towards the members of the same
community, and therefore towards known, and more or less beloved
members, but not to all the individuals of the same species. This fact
is not more surprising than that the fears of many animals should be
directed against special enemies. Species which are not social, such
as lions and tigers, no doubt feel sympathy for the suffering of their
own young, but not for that of any other animal. With mankind,
selfishness, experience, and imitation, probably add, as Mr. Bain
has shown, to the power of sympathy; for we are led by the hope of
receiving good in return to perform acts of sympathetic kindness to
others; and sympathy is much strengthened by habit. In however complex
a manner this feeling may have originated, as it is one of high
importance to all those animals which aid and defend one another, it
will have been increased through natural selection; for those
communities, which included the greatest number of the most
sympathetic members, would flourish best, and rear the greatest number
of offspring.
* See the first and striking chapter in Adam Smith's Theory of Moral
Sentiments. Also Mr. Bain's Mental and Moral Science, 1868, pp. 244,
and 275-282. Mr. Bain states, that, "Sympathy is, indirectly, a source
of pleasure to the sympathiser"; and he accounts for this through
reciprocity. He remarks that "The person benefited, or others in his
stead, may make up, by sympathy and good offices returned, for all the
sacrifice." But if, as appears to be the case, sympathy is strictly an
instinct, its exercise would give direct pleasure, in the same
manner as the exercise, as before remarked, of almost every other
instinct.
It is, however, impossible to decide in many cases whether certain
social instincts have been acquired through natural selection, or
are the indirect result of other instincts and faculties, such as
sympathy, reason, experience, and a tendency to imitation; or again,
whether they are simply the result of long-continued habit. So
remarkable an instinct as the placing sentinels to warn the
community of danger, can hardly have been the indirect result of any
of these faculties; it must, therefore, have been directly acquired.
On the other hand, the habit followed by the males of some social
animals of defending the community, and of attacking their enemies
or their prey in concert, may perhaps have originated from mutual
sympathy; but courage, and in most cases strength, must have been
previously acquired, probably through natural selection.
Of the various instincts and habits, some are much stronger than
others; that is, some either give more pleasure in their
performance, and more distress in their prevention, than others; or,
which is probably quite as important, they are, through inheritance,
more persistently followed, without exciting any special feeling of
pleasure or pain. We are ourselves conscious that some habits are much
more difficult to cure or change than others. Hence a struggle may
often be observed in animals between different instincts, or between
an instinct and some habitual disposition; as when a dog rushes
after a hare, is rebuked, pauses, hesitates, pursues again, or returns
ashamed to his master; or as between the love of a female dog for
her young puppies and for her master,-for she may be seen to slink
away to them, as if half ashamed of not accompanying her master. But
the most curious instance known to me of one instinct getting the
better of another, is the migratory instinct conquering the maternal
instinct. The former is wonderfully strong; a confined bird will at
the proper season beat her breast against the wires of her cage, until
it is bare and bloody. It causes young salmon to leap out of the fresh
water, in which they could continue to exist, and thus unintentionally
to commit suicide. Every one knows how strong the maternal instinct
is, leading even timid birds to face great danger, though with
hesitation, and in opposition to the instinct of self-preservation.
Nevertheless, the migratory instinct is so powerful, that late in
the autumn swallows, house-martins, and swifts frequently desert their
tender young, leaving them to perish miserably in their nests.*
* This fact, the Rev. L. Jenyns states (see his edition of White's
Nat. Hist. of Selborne, 1853, p. 204), was first recorded by the
illustrious Jenner, in Phil. Transact., 1824, and has since been
confirmed by several observers, especially by Mr. Blackwall. This
latter careful observer examined, late in the autumn, during two
years, thirty-six nests; he found that twelve contained young dead
birds, five contained eggs on the point of being hatched, and three,
eggs not nearly hatched. Many birds, not yet old enough for a
prolonged flight, are likewise deserted and left behind. See
Blackwall, Researches in Zoology, 1834, pp. 108, 118. For some
additional evidence, although this is not wanted, see Leroy, Lettres
Phil., 1802, p. 217. For swifts, Gould's Introduction to the Birds
of Great Britain, 1823, p. 5. Similar cases have been observed in
Canada by Mr. Adams; Pop. Science Review, July, 1873, p. 283.
We can perceive that an instinctive impulse, if it be in any way
more beneficial to a species than some other or opposed instinct,
would be rendered the more potent of the two through natural
selection; for the individuals which had it most strongly developed
would survive in larger numbers. Whether this is the case with the
migratory in comparison with the maternal instinct, may be doubted.
The great persistence, or steady action of the former at certain
seasons of the year during the whole day, may give it for a time
paramount force.
Man a social animal.- Every one will admit that man is a social
being. We see this in his dislike of solitude, and in his wish for
society beyond that of his own family. Solitary confinement is one
of the severest punishments which can be inflicted. Some authors
suppose that man primevally lived in single families; but at the
present day, though single families, or only two or three together,
roam the solitudes of some savage lands, they always, as far as I
can discover, hold friendly relations with other families inhabiting
the same district. Such families occasionally meet in council, and
unite for their common defence. It is no argument against savage man
being a social animal, that the tribes inhabiting adjacent districts
are almost always at war with each other; for the social instincts
never extend to all the individuals of the same species. Judging
from the analogy of the majority of the Quadrumana, it is probable
that the early ape-like progenitors of man were likewise social; but
this is not of much importance for us. Although man, as he now exists,
has few special instincts, having lost any which his early progenitors
may have possessed, this is no reason why he should not have
retained from an extremely remote period some degree of instinctive
love and sympathy for his fellows. We are indeed all conscious that we
do possess such sympathetic feelings;* but our consciousness does
not tell us whether they are instinctive, having originated long ago
in the same manner as with the lower animals, or whether they have
been acquired by each of us during our early years. As man is a social
animal, it is almost certain that he would inherit a tendency to be
faithful to his comrades, and obedient to the leader of his tribe; for
these qualities are common to most social animals. He would
consequently possess some capacity for self-command. He would from
an inherited tendency be willing to defend, in concert with others,
his fellow-men; and would be ready to aid them in any way, which did
not too greatly interfere with his own welfare or his own strong
desires.
* Hume remarks (An Enquiry Concerning the Principles of Morals,
ed. of 1751, p. 132), "There seems a necessity for confessing that the
happiness and misery of others are not spectacles altogether
indifferent to us, but that the view of the former... communicates a
secret joy; the appearance of the latter... throws a melancholy damp
over the imagination."
The social animals which stand at the bottom of the scale are guided
almost exclusively, and those which stand higher in the scale are
largely guided, by special instincts in the aid which they give to the
members of the same community; but they are likewise in part
impelled by mutual love and sympathy, assisted apparently by some
amount of reason. Although man, as just remarked, has no special
instincts to tell him how to aid his fellow-men, he still has the
impulse, and with his improved intellectual faculties would
naturally be much guided in this respect by reason and experience.
Instinctive sympathy would also cause him to value highly the
approbation of his fellows; for, as Mr. Bain has clearly shewn,* the
love of praise and the strong feeling of glory, and the still stronger
horror of scorn and infamy, "are due to the workings of sympathy."
Consequently man would be influenced in the highest degree by the
wishes, approbation, and blame of his fellow-men, as expressed by
their gestures and language. Thus the social instincts, which must
have been acquired by man in a very rude state, and probably even by
his early ape-like progenitors, still give the impulse to some of
his best actions; but his actions are in a higher degree determined by
the expressed wishes and judgment of his fellow-men, and unfortunately
very often by his own strong selfish desires. But as love, sympathy
and self-command become strengthened by habit, and as the power of
reasoning becomes clearer, so that man can value justly the
judgments of his fellows, he will feel himself impelled, apart from
any transitory pleasure or pain, to certain lines of conduct. He might
then declare- not that any barbarian or uncultivated man could thus
think- I am the supreme judge of my own conduct, and in the words of
Kant, I will not in my own person violate the dignity of humanity.
* Mental and Moral Science, 1868, p. 254.
The more enduring Social Instincts conquer the less persistent
Instincts.- We have not, however, as yet considered the main point, on
which, from our present point of view, the whole question of the moral
sense turns. Why should a man feel that he ought to obey one
instinctive desire rather than another? Why is he bitterly
regretful, if he has yielded to a strong sense of self-preservation,
and has not risked his life to save that of a fellow-creature? Or
why does he regret having stolen food from hunger?
It is evident in the first place, that with mankind the
instinctive impulses have different degrees of strength; a savage will
risk his own life to save that of a member of the same community,
but will be wholly indifferent about a stranger: a young and timid
mother urged by the maternal instinct will, without a moment's
hesitation, run the greatest danger for her own infant, but not for
a mere fellow-creature. Nevertheless many a civilized man, or even
boy, who never before risked his life for another, but full of courage
and sympathy, has disregarded the instinct of self-preservation, and
plunged at once into a torrent to save a drowning man, though a
stranger. In this case man is impelled by the same instinctive motive,
which made the heroic little American monkey, formerly described, save
his keeper, by attacking the great and dreaded baboon. Such actions as
the above appear to be the simple result of the greater strength of
the social or maternal instincts rather than that of any other
instinct or motive; for they are performed too instantaneously for
reflection, or for pleasure or pain to be felt at the time; though, if
prevented by any cause, distress or even misery might be felt. In a
timid man, on the other hand, the instinct of self-preservation, might
be so strong, that he would be unable to force himself to run any such
risk, perhaps not even for his own child.
I am aware that some persons maintain that actions performed
impulsively, as in the above cases, do not come under the dominion
of the moral sense, and cannot be called moral. They confine this term
to actions done deliberately, after a victory over opposing desires,
or when prompted by some exalted motive. But it appears scarcely
possible to draw any clear line of distinction of this kind.* As far
as exalted motives are concerned, many instances have been recorded of
savages, destitute of any feeling of general benevolence towards
mankind, and not guided by any religious motive, who have deliberately
sacrificed their lives as prisoners,*(2) rather than betray their
comrades; and surely their conduct ought to be considered as moral. As
far as deliberation, and the victory over opposing motives are
concerned, animals may be seen doubting between opposed instincts,
in rescuing their offspring or comrades from danger; yet their
actions, though done for the good of others, are not called moral.
Moreover, anything performed very often by us, will at last be done
without deliberation or hesitation, and can then hardly be
distinguished from an instinct; yet surely no one will pretend that
such an action ceases to be moral. On the contrary, we all feel that
an act cannot be considered as perfect, or as performed in the most
noble manner, unless it be done impulsively, without deliberation or
effort, in the same manner as by a man in whom the requisite qualities
are innate. He who is forced to overcome his fear or want of
sympathy before he acts, deserves, however, in one way higher credit
than the man whose innate disposition leads him to a good act
without effort. As we cannot distinguish between motives, we rank
all actions of a certain class as moral, if performed by a moral
being. A moral being is one who is capable of comparing his past and
future actions or motives, and of approving or disapproving of them.
We have no reason to suppose that any of the lower animals have this
capacity; therefore, when a Newfoundland dog drags a child out of
the water, or a monkey faces danger to rescue its comrade, or takes
charge of an orphan monkey, we do not call its conduct moral. But in
the case of man, who alone can with certainty be ranked as a moral
being, actions of a certain class are called moral, whether
performed deliberately, after a struggle with opposing motives, or
impulsively through instinct, or from the effects of slowly-gained
habit.
* I refer here to the distinction between what has been called
material and formal morality. I am glad to find that Professor
Huxley (Critiques and Addresses, 1873, p. 287) takes the same view
on this subject as I do. Mr. Leslie Stephen remarks (Essays on Free
Thinking and Plain Speaking, 1873, p. 83), "The metaphysical
distinction between material and formal morality is as irrelevant as
other such distinctions."
*(2) I have given one such case, namely of three Patagonian
Indians who preferred being shot, one after the other, to betraying
the plans of their companions in war (Journal of Researches, 1845,
p. 103).
But to return to our more immediate subject. Although some instincts
are more powerful than others, and thus lead to corresponding actions,
yet it is untenable, that in man the social instincts (including the
love of praise and fear of blame) possess greater strength, or have,
through long habit, acquired greater strength than the instincts of
self-preservation, hunger, lust, vengeance, &c. Why then does man
regret, even though trying to banish such regret, that he has followed
the one natural impulse rather than the other; and why does he further
feel that he ought to regret his conduct? Man in this respect
differs profoundly from the lower animals. Nevertheless we can, I
think, see with some degree of clearness the reason of this
difference.
Man, from the activity of his mental faculties, cannot avoid
reflection: past impressions and images are incessantly and clearly
passing through his mind. Now with those animals which live
permanently in a body, the social instincts are ever present and
persistent. Such animals are always ready to utter the
danger-signal, to defend the community, and to give aid to their
fellows in accordance with their habits; they feel at all times,
without the stimulus of any special passion or desire, some degree
of love and sympathy for them; they are unhappy if long separated from
them, and always happy to be again in their company. So it is with
ourselves. Even when we are quite alone, how often do we think with
pleasure or pain of what others think of us,- of their imagined
approbation or disapprobation; and this all follows from sympathy, a
fundamental element of the social instincts. A man who possessed no
trace of such instincts would be an unnatural monster. On the other
hand, the desire to satisfy hunger, or any passion such as
vengeance, is in its nature temporary, and can for a time be fully
satisfied. Nor is it easy, perhaps hardly possible, to call up with
complete vividness the feeling, for instance, of hunger; nor indeed,
as has often been remarked, of any suffering. The instinct of
self-preservation is not felt except in the presence of danger; and
many a coward has thought himself brave until he has met his enemy
face to face. The wish for another man's property is perhaps as
persistent a desire as any that can be named; but even in this case
the satisfaction of actual possession is generally a weaker feeling
than the desire: many a thief, if not an habitual one, after success
has wondered why he stole some article.*
* Enmity or hatred seems also to be a highly persistent feeling,
perhaps more so than any other that can be named. Envy is defined as
hatred of another for some excellence or success; and Bacon insists
(Essay ix.), "Of all other affections envy is the most importune and
continual." Dogs are very apt to hate both strange men and strange
dogs, especially if they live near at hand, but do not belong to the
same family, tribe, or clan; this feeling would thus seem to be
innate, and is certainly a most persistent one. It seems to be the
complement and converse of the true social instinct. From what we hear
of savages, it would appear that something of the same kind holds good
with them. If this be so, it would be a small step in any one to
transfer such feelings to any member of the same tribe if he had
done him an injury and had become his enemy. Nor is it probable that
the primitive conscience would reproach a man for injuring his
enemy; rather it would reproach him, if he had not revenged himself.
To do good in return for evil, to love your enemy, is a height of
morality to which it may be doubted whether the social instincts
would, by themselves, have ever led us. It is necessary that these
instincts, together with sympathy, should have been highly
cultivated and extended by the aid of reason, instruction, and the
love or fear of God, before any such golden rule would ever be thought
of and obeyed.
A man cannot prevent past impressions often repassing through his
mind; he will thus be driven to make a comparison between the
impressions of past hunger, vengeance satisfied, or danger shunned
at other men's cost, with the almost ever-present instinct of
sympathy, and with his early knowledge of what others consider as
praiseworthy or blameable. This knowledge cannot be banished from
his mind, and from instinctive sympathy is esteemed of great moment.
He will then feel as if he had been baulked in following a present
instinct or habit, and this with all animals causes dissatisfaction,
or even misery.
The above case of the swallow affords an illustration, though of a
reversed nature, of a temporary though for the time strongly
persistent instinct conquering another instinct, which is usually
dominant over all others. At the proper season these birds seem all
day long to be impressed with the desire to migrate; their habits
change; they become restless, are noisy and congregate in flocks.
Whilst the mother-bird is feeding, or brooding over her nestlings, the
maternal instinct is probably stronger than the migratory; but the
instinct which is the more persistent gains the victory, and at
last, at a moment when her young ones are not in sight, she takes
flight and deserts them. When arrived at the end of her long
journey, and the migratory instinct has ceased to act, what an agony
of remorse the bird would feel, if, from being endowed with great
mental activity, she could not prevent the image constantly passing
through her mind, of her young ones perishing in the bleak north
from cold and hunger.
At the moment of action, man will no doubt be apt to follow the
stronger impulse; and though this may occasionally prompt him to the
noblest deeds, it will more commonly lead him to gratify his own
desires at the expense of other men. But after their gratification
when past and weaker impressions are judged by the ever-enduring
social instinct, and by his deep regard for the good opinion of his
fellows, retribution will surely come. He will then feel remorse,
repentance, regret, or shame; this latter feeling, however, relates
almost exclusively to the judgment of others. He will consequently
resolve more or less firmly to act differently for the future; and
this is conscience; for conscience looks backwards, and serves as a
guide for the future.
The nature and strength of the feelings which we call regret, shame,
repentance or remorse, depend apparently not only on the strength of
the violated instinct, but partly on the strength of the temptation,
and often still more on the judgment of our fellows. How far each
man values the appreciation of others, depends on the strength of
his innate or acquired feeling of sympathy; and on his own capacity
for reasoning out the remote consequences of his acts. Another element
is most important, although not necessary, the reverence or fear of
the Gods, or Spirits believed in by each man: and this applies
especially in cases of remorse. Several critics have objected that
though some slight regret or repentance may be explained by the view
advocated in this chapter, it is impossible thus to account for the
soul-shaking feeling of remorse. But I can see little force in this
objection. My critics do not define what they mean by remorse, and I
can find no definition implying more than an overwhelming sense of
repentance. Remorse seems to bear the same relation to repentance,
as rage does to anger, or agony to pain. It is far from strange that
an instinct so strong and so generally admired, as maternal love,
should, if disobeyed, lead to the deepest misery, as soon as the
impression of the past cause of disobedience is weakened. Even when an
action is opposed to no special instinct, merely to know that our
friends and equals despise us for it is enough to cause great
misery. Who can doubt that the refusal to fight a duel through fear
has caused many men an agony of shame? Many a Hindoo, it is said,
has been stirred to the bottom of his soul by having partaken of
unclean food. Here is another case of what must, I think, be called
remorse. Dr. Landor acted as a magistrate in West Australia, and
relates* that a native on his farm, after losing one of his wives from
disease, came and said that, "He was going to a distant tribe to spear
a woman, to satisfy his sense of duty to his wife. I told him that
if he did so, I would send him to prison for life. He remained about
the farm for some months, but got exceedingly thin, and complained
that he could not rest or eat, that his wife's spirit was haunting
him, because he had not taken a life for hers. I was inexorable, and
assured him that nothing should save him if he did." Nevertheless
the man disappeared for more than a year, and then returned in high
condition; and his other wife told Dr. Landor that her husband had
taken the life of a woman belonging to a distant tribe; but it was
impossible to obtain legal evidence of the act. The breach of a rule
held sacred by the tribe, will thus, as it seems, give rise to the
deepest feelings,- and this quite apart from the social instincts,
excepting in so far as the rule is grounded on the judgment of the
community. How so many strange superstitions have arisen throughout
the world we know not; nor can we tell how some real and great crimes,
such as incest, have come to be held in an abhorrence (which is not
however quite universal) by the lowest savages. It is even doubtful
whether in some tribes incest would be looked on with greater
horror, than would the marriage of a man with a woman bearing the same
name, though not a relation. "To violate this law is a crime which the
Australians hold in the greatest abhorrence, in this agreeing
exactly with certain tribes of North America. When the question is put
in either district, is it worse to kill a girl of a foreign tribe,
or to marry a girl of one's own, an answer just opposite to ours would
be given without hesitation."*(2) We may, therefore, reject the
belief, lately insisted on by some writers, that the abhorrence of
incest is due to our possessing a special God-implanted conscience. On
the whole it is intelligible, that a man urged by so powerful a
sentiment as remorse, though arising as above explained, should be led
to act in a manner, which he has been taught to believe serves as an
expiation, such as delivering himself up to justice.
* Insanity in Relation to Law, Ontario, United States, 1871, p. 1.
*(2) E. B. Tylor, in Contemporary Review, April, 1873, p. 707.
Man prompted by his conscience, will through long habit acquire such
perfect self-command, that his desires and passions will at last yield
instantly and without a struggle to his social sympathies and
instincts, including his feeling for the judgment of his fellows.
The still hungry, or the still revengeful man will not think of
stealing food, or of wreaking his vengeance. It is possible, or as
we shall hereafter see, even probable, that the habit of
self-command may, like other habits, be inherited. Thus at last man
comes to feel, through aequired and perhaps inherited habit, that it
is best for him to obey his more persistent impulses. The imperious
word ought seems merely to imply the consciousness of the existence of
a rule of conduct, however it may have originated. Formerly it must
have been often vehemently urged that an insulted gentleman ought to
fight a duel. We even say that a pointer ought to point, and a
retriever to retrieve game. If they fail to do so, they fail in
their duty and act wrongly.
If any desire or instinct leading to an action opposed to the good
of others still appears, when recalled to mind, as strong as, or
stronger than, the social instinct, a man will feel no keen regret
at having followed it; but he will be conscious that if his conduct
were known to his fellows, it would meet with their disapprobation;
and few are so destitute of sympathy as not to feel discomfort when
this is realised. If he has no such sympathy, and if his desires
leading to bad actions are at the time strong, and when recalled are
not over-mastered by the persistent social instincts, and the judgment
of others, then he is essentially a bad man;* and the sole restraining
motive left is the fear of punishment, and the conviction that in
the long run it would be best for his own selfish interests to
regard the good of others rather than his own.
* Dr. Prosper Despine, in his Psychologie Naturelle, 1868 (tom.
i., p. 243; tom. ii., p. 169) gives many curious cases of the worst
criminals who apparently have been entirely destitute of conscience.
It is obvious that every one may with an easy conscience gratify his
own desires, if they do not interfere with his social instincts,
that is with the good of others; but in order to be quite free from
self-reproach, or at least of anxiety, it is almost necessary for
him to avoid the disapprobation, whether reasonable or not, of his
fellow-men. Nor must he break through the fixed habits of his life,
especially if these are supported by reason; for if he does, he will
assuredly feel dissatisfaction. He must likewise avoid the reprobation
of the one God or gods in whom. according to his knowledge or
superstition, he may believe; but in this case the additional fear
of divine punishment often supervenes.
The strictly Social Virtues at first alone regarded.- The above view
of the origin and nature of the moral sense, which tells us what we
ought to do, and of the conscience which reproves us if we disobey it,
accords well with what we see of the early and undeveloped condition
of this faculty in mankind. The virtues which must be practised, at
least generally, by rude men, so that they may associate in a body,
are those which are still recognised as the most important. But they
are practised almost exclusively in relation to the men of the same
tribe; and their opposites are not regarded as crimes in relation to
the men of other tribes. No tribe could hold together if murder,
robbery, treachery, &c., were common; consequently such crimes
within the limits of the same tribe "are branded with everlasting
infamy";* but excite no such sentiment beyond these limits. A
North-American Indian is well pleased with himself, and is honoured by
others, when he scalps a man of another tribe; and a Dyak cuts off the
head of an unoffending person, and dries it as a trophy. The murder of
infants has prevailed on the largest scale throughout the world,*(2)
and has met with no reproach; but infanticide, especially of
females, has been thought to be good for the tribe, or at least not
injurious. Suicide during former times was not generally considered as
a crime,*(3) but rather, from the courage displayed, as an
honourable act; and it is still practised by some semi-civilised and
savage nations without reproach, for it does not obviously concern
others of the tribe. It has been recorded that an Indian Thug
conscientiously regretted that he had not robbed and strangled as many
travellers as did his father before him. In a rude state of
civilisation the robbery of strangers is, indeed, generally considered
as honourable.
* See an able article in the North British Review, 1867, p. 395. See
also Mr. W. Bagehot's articles on the "Importance of Obedience and
Coherence to Primitive Man, " in the Fortnightly Review, 1867, p. 529,
and 1868, p. 457, &c.
*(2) The fullest account which I have met with is by Dr. Gerland, in
his Ober den Aussterben der Naturvolker, 1868: but I shall have to
recur to the subject of infanticide in a future chapter.
*(3) See the very interesting discussion on suicide in Lecky's
History of European Morals, vol. i., 1869, p. 223. With respect to
savages, Mr. Winwood Reade informs me that the negroes of west
Africa often commit suicide. It is well known how common it was
amongst the miserable aborigines of South America after the Spanish
conquest. For New Zealand, see The Voyage of the Novara, and for the
Aleutian Islands, Muller, as quoted by Houzeau, Les Facultes Mentales,
&c., tom. ii., p. 136.
Slavery, although in some ways beneficial during ancient times,*
is a great crime; yet it was not so regarded until quite recently,
even by the most civilised nations. And this was especially the
case, because the slaves belonged in general to a race different
from that of their masters. As barbarians do not regard the opinion of
their women, wives are commonly treated like slaves. Most savages
are utterly indifferent to the sufferings of strangers, or even
delight in witnessing them. It is well known that the women and
children of the North American Indians aided in torturing their
enemies. Some savages take a horrid pleasure in cruelty to
animals,*(2) and humanity is an unknown virtue. Nevertheless,
besides the family affections, kindness is common, especially during
sickness, between the members of the same tribe, and is sometimes
extended beyond these limits. Mungo Park's touching account of the
kindness of the negro women of the interior to him is well known. Many
instances could be given of the noble fidelity of savages towards each
other, but not to strangers; common experience justifies the maxim
of the Spaniard, "Never, never trust an Indian." There cannot be
fidelity without truth; and this fundamental virtue is not rare
between the members of the same tribe: thus Mungo Park heard the negro
women teaching their young children to love the truth. This, again, is
one of the virtues which becomes so deeply rooted in the mind, that it
is sometimes practised by savages, even at a high cost, towards
strangers; but to lie to your enemy has rarely been thought a sin,
as the history of modern diplomacy too plainly shews. As soon as a
tribe has a recognised leader, disobedience becomes a crime, and
even abject submission is looked at as a sacred virtue.
* See Mr. Bagehot, Physics and Politics, 1872, p. 72.
*(2) See, for instance, Mr. Hamilton's account of the Kaffirs,
Anthropological Review, 1870, p. xv.
As during rude times no man can be useful or faithful to his tribe
without courage, this quality has universally been placed in the
highest rank; and although in civilised countries a good yet timid man
may be far more useful to the community than a brave one, we cannot
help instinctively honouring the latter above a coward, however
benevolent. Prudence, on the other hand, which does not concern the
welfare of others, though a very useful virtue, has never been
highly esteemed. As no man can practise the virtues necessary for
the welfare of his tribe without self-sacrifice, self-command, and the
power of endurance, these qualities have been at all times highly
and most justly valued. The American savage voluntarily submits to the
most horrid tortures without a groan, to prove and strengthen his
fortitude and courage; and we cannot help admiring him, or even an
Indian Fakir, who, from a foolish religious motive, swings suspended
by a hook buried in his flesh.
The other so-called self-regarding virtues, which do not
obviously, though they may really, affect the welfare of the tribe,
have never been esteemed by savages, though now highly appreciated
by civilised nations. The greatest intemperance is no reproach with
savages. Utter licentiousness, and unnatural crimes, prevail to an
astounding extent.* As soon, however, as marriage, whether polygamous,
or monogamous, becomes common, jealousy will lead to the inculcation
of female virtue; and this, being honoured, will tend to spread to the
unmarried females. How slowly it spreads to the male sex, we see at
the present day. Chastity eminently requires self-command;
therefore, it has been honoured from a very early period in the
moral history of civilised man. As a consequence of this, the
senseless practice of celibacy has been ranked from a remote period as
a virtue.*(2) The hatred of indecency, which appears to us so
natural as to be thought innate, and which is so valuable an aid to
chastity, is a modern virtue, appertaining exclusively, as Sir G.
Staunton remarks,*(3) to civilised life. This is shewn by the
ancient religious rites of various nations, by the drawings on the
walls of Pompeii, and by the practices of many savages.
* Mr. M'Lennan has given (Primitive Marriage, 1865, p. 176) a good
collection of facts on this head.
*(2) Lecky, History of European Morals, vol. i., 1869, p. 109.
*(3) Embassy to China, vol. ii., p. 348.
We have now seen that actions are regarded by savages, and were
probably so regarded by primeval man, as good or bad, solely as they
obviously affect the welfare of the tribe,- not that of the species,
nor that of an individual member of the tribe. This conclusion
agrees well with the belief that the so-called moral sense is
aboriginally derived from the social instincts, for both relate at
first exclusively to the community.
The chief causes of the low morality of savages, as judged by our
standard, are, firstly, the confinement of sympathy to the same tribe.
Secondly, powers of reasoning insufficient to recognise the bearing of
many virtues, especially of the self-regarding virtues, on the general
welfare of the tribe. Savages, for instance, fail to trace the
multiplied evils consequent on a want of temperance, chastity, &c.
And, thirdly, weak power of self-command; for this power has not
been strengthened through long-continued, perhaps inherited, habit,
instruction and religion.
I have entered into the above details on the immorality of savages,*
because some authors have recently taken a high view of their moral
nature, or have attributed most of their crimes to mistaken
benevolence.*(2) These authors appear to rest their conclusion on
savages possessing those virtues which are serviceable, or even
necessary, for the existence of the family and of the tribe,-
qualities which they undoubtedly do possess, and often in a high
degree.
* See on this subject copious evidence in chap. vii. of Sir J.
Lubbock, Origin of Civilisation, 1870.
*(2) For instance Lecky, History of European Morals, vol. i., p.
124.
Concluding Remarks.- It was assumed formerly by philosophers of
the derivative* school of morals that the foundation of morality lay
in a form of Selfishness; but more recently the "Greatest happiness
principle" has been brought prominently forward. It is, however,
more correct to speak of the latter principle as the standard, and not
as the motive of conduct. Nevertheless, all the authors whose works
I have consulted, with a few exceptions,*(2) write as if there must be
a distinct motive for every action, and that this must be associated
with some pleasure or displeasure. But man seems often to act
impulsively, that is from instinct or long habit, without any
consciousness of pleasure, in the same manner as does probably a bee
or ant, when it blindly follows its instincts. Under circumstances
of extreme peril, as during a fire, when a man endeavours to save a
fellow-creature without a moment's hesitation, he can hardly feel
pleasure; and still less has he time to reflect on the dissatisfaction
which he might subsequently experience if he did not make the attempt.
Should he afterwards reflect over his own conduct, he would feel
that there lies within him an impulsive power widely different from
a search after pleasure or happiness; and this seems to be the
deeply planted social instinct.
* This term is used in an able article in the Westminster Review,
Oct., 1869, p. 498; For the "Greatest happiness principle," see J.
S. Mill, Utilitarianism, p. 448.
*(2) Mill recognises (System of Logic, vol. ii., p. 422) in the
clearest manner, that actions may be performed through habit without
the anticipation of pleasure. Mr. H. Sidgwick also, in his "Essay on
Pleasure and Desire" (The Contemporary Review, April, 1872, p. 671),
remarks: "To sum up, in contravention of the doctrine that our
conscious active impulses are always directed towards the production
of agreeable sensations in ourselves, I would maintain that we find
everywhere in consciousness extra-regarding impulse, directed
towards something that is not pleasure; that in many case the
impulse is so far incompatible with the self-regarding that the two do
not easily co-exist in the same moment of consciousness." A dim
feeling that our impulses do not by any means always arise from any
contemporaneous or anticipated pleasure, has, I cannot but think, been
one chief cause of the acceptance of the intuitive theory of morality,
and of the rejection of the utilitarian or "Greatest happiness"
theory. With respect to the latter theory the standard and the
motive of conduct have no doubt often been confused, but they are
really in some degree blended.
In the case of the lower animals it seems much more appropriate to
speak of their social instincts, as having been developed for the
general good rather than for the general happiness of the species. The
term, general good, may be defined as the rearing of the greatest
number of individuals in full vigour and health, with all their
faculties perfect, under the conditions to which they are subjected.
As the social instincts both of man and the lower animals have no
doubt been developed by nearly the same steps, it would be
advisable, if found practicable, to use the same definition in both
cases, and to take as the standard of morality, the general good or
welfare of the community, rather than the general happiness; but
this definition would perhaps require some limitation on account of
political ethics.
When a man risks his life to save that of a fellow-creature, it
seems also more correct to say that he acts for the general good,
rather than for the general happiness of mankind. No doubt the welfare
and the happiness of the individual usually coincide; and a contented,
happy tribe will flourish better than one that is discontented and
unhappy. We have seen that even at an early period in the history of
man, the expressed wishes of the community will have naturally
influenced to a large extent the conduct of each member; and as all
wish for happiness, the "greatest happiness principle" will have
become a most important secondary guide and object; the social
instinct, however, together with sympathy (which leads to our
regarding the approbation and disapprobation of others), having served
as the primary impulse and guide. Thus the reproach is removed of
laying the foundation of the noblest part of our nature in the base
principle of selfishness; unless, indeed, the satisfaction which every
animal feels, when it follows its proper instincts, and the
dissatisfaction felt when prevented, be called selfish.
The wishes and opinions of the members of the same community,
expressed at first orally, but later by writing also, either form
the sole guides of our conduct, or greatly reinforce the social
instincts; such opinions, however, have sometimes a tendency
directly opposed to these instincts. This latter fact is well
exemplified by the Law of Honour, that is, the law of the opinion of
our equals, and not of all our countrymen. The breach of this law,
even when the breach is known to be strictly accordant with true
morality, has caused many a man more agony than a real crime. We
recognise the same influence in the burning sense of shame which
most of us have felt, even after the interval of years, when calling
to mind some accidental breach of a trifling, though fixed, rule of
etiquette. The judgment of the community will generally be guided by
some rude experience of what is best in the long run for all the
members; but this judgment will not rarely err from ignorance and weak
powers of reasoning. Hence the strangest customs and superstitions, in
complete opposition to the true welfare and happiness of mankind, have
become all-powerful throughout the world. We see this in the horror
felt by a Hindoo who breaks his caste, and in many other such cases.
It would be difficult to distinguish between the remorse felt by a
Hindoo who has yielded to the temptation of eating unclean food,
from that felt after committing a theft; but the former would probably
be the more severe.
How so many absurd rules of conduct, as well as so many absurd
religious beliefs, have originated, we do not know; nor how it is that
they have become, in all quarters of the world, so deeply impressed on
the mind of men; but it is worthy of remark that a belief constantly
inculcated during the early years of life, whilst the brain is
impressible, appears to acquire almost the nature of an instinct;
and the very essence of an instinct is that it is followed
independently of reason. Neither can we say why certain admirable
virtues, such as the love of truth, are much more highly appreciated
by some savage tribes than by others;* nor, again, why similar
differences prevail even amongst highly civilised nations. Knowing how
firmly fixed many strange customs and superstitions have become, we
need feel no surprise that the self-regarding virtues, supported as
they are by reason, should now appear to us so natural as to be
thought innate, although they were not valued by man in his early
condition.
* Good instances are given by Mr. Wallace in Scientific Opinion,
Sept. 15, 1869; and more fully in his Contributions to the Theory of
Natural Selection, 1870, p. 353.
Not withstanding many sources of doubt, man can generally and
readily distinguish between the higher and lower moral rules. The
higher are founded on the social instincts, and relate to the
welfare of others. They are supported by the approbation of our
fellow-men and by reason. The lower rules, though some of them when
implying self-sacrifice hardly deserve to be called lower, relate
chiefly to self, and arise from public opinion, matured by
experience and cultivation; for they are not practised by rude tribes.
As man advances in civilisation, and small tribes are united into
larger communities, the simplest reason would tell each individual
that he ought to extend his social instincts and sympathies to all the
members of the same nation, though personally unknown to him. This
point being once reached, there is only an artificial barrier to
prevent his sympathies extending to the men of all nations and
races. If, indeed, such men are separated from him by great
differences in appearance or habits, experience unfortunately shews us
how long it is, before we look at them as our fellow-creatures.
Sympathy beyond the confines of man, that is, humanity to the lower
animals, seems to be one of the latest moral acquisitions. It is
apparently unfelt by savages, except towards their pets. How little
the old Romans knew of it is shewn by their abhorrent gladiatorial
exhibitions. The very idea of humanity, as far as I could observe, was
new to most of the Gauchos of the Pampas. This virtue, one of the
noblest with which man is endowed, seems to arise incidentally from
our sympathies becoming more tender and more widely diffused, until
they are extended to all sentient beings. As soon as this virtue is
honoured and practised by some few men, it spreads through instruction
and example to the young, and eventually becomes incorporated in
public opinion.
The highest possible stage in moral culture is when we recognise
that we ought to control our thoughts, and "not even in inmost thought
to think again the sins that made the past so pleasant to us."*
Whatever makes any bad action familiar to the mind, renders its
performance by so much the easier. As Marcus Aurelius long ago said,
"Such as are thy habitual thoughts, such also will be the character of
thy mind; for the soul is dyed by the thoughts."*(2)
* Tennyson, Idylls of the King, p. 244.
*(2) Marcus Aurelius, Meditations, Bk. V, sect. 16.
Our great philosopher, Herbert Spencer, has recently explained his
views on the moral sense. He says, "I believe that the experiences
of utility organised and consolidated through all past generations
of the human race, have been producing corresponding modifications,
which, by continued transmission and accumulation, have become in us
certain faculties of moral intuition- certain emotions responding to
right and wrong conduct, which have no apparent basis in the
individual experiences of utility."* There is not the least inherent
improbability, as it seems to me, in virtuous tendencies being more or
less strongly inherited; for, not to mention the various
dispositions and habits transmitted by many of our domestic animals to
their offspring, I have heard of authentic cases in which a desire
to steal and a tendency to lie appeared to run in families of the
upper ranks; and as stealing is a rare crime in the wealthy classes,
we can hardly account by accidental coincidence for the tendency
occurring in two or three members of the same family. If bad
tendencies are transmitted, it is probable that good ones are likewise
transmitted. That the state of the body by affecting the brain, has
great influence on the moral tendencies is known to most of those
who have suffered from chronic derangements of the digestion or liver.
The same fact is likewise shewn by the "perversion or destruction of
the moral sense being often one of the earliest symptoms of mental
derangement";*(2) and insanity is notoriously often inherited.
Except through the principle of the transmission of moral
tendencies, we cannot understand the differences believed to exist
in this respect between the various races of mankind.
* Letter to Mr. Mill in Bain's Mental and Moral Science, 1868, p.
722.
*(2) Maudsley, Body and Mind, 1870, p. 60.
Even the partial transmission of virtuous tendencies would be an
immense assistance to the primary impulse derived directly and
indirectly from the social instincts. Admitting for a moment that
virtuous tendencies are inherited, it appears probable, at least in
such cases as chastity, temperance, humanity to animals, &c., that
they become first impressed on the mental organization through
habit, instruction and example, continued during several generations
in the same family, and in a quite subordinate degree, or not at
all, by the individuals possessing such virtues having succeeded
best in the struggle for life. My chief source of doubt with respect
to any such inheritance, is that senseless customs, superstitions, and
tastes, such as the horror of a Hindoo for unclean food, ought on
the same principle to be transmitted. I have not met with any evidence
in support of the transmission of superstitious customs or senseless
habits, although in itself it is perhaps not less probable than that
animals should acquire inherited tastes for certain kinds of food or
fear of certain foes.
Finally the social instincts, which no doubt were acquired by man as
by the lower animals for the good of the community, will from the
first have given to him some wish to aid his fellows, some feeling
of sympathy, and have compelled him to regard their approbation and
disapprobation. Such impulses will have served him at a very early
period as a rude rule of right and wrong. But as man gradually
advanced in intellectual power, and was enabled to trace the more
remote consequences of his actions; as he aequired sufficient
knowledge to reject baneful customs and superstitions; as he
regarded more and more, not only the welfare, but the happiness of his
fellow-men; as from habit, following on beneficial experience,
instruction and example, his sympathies became more tender and
widely diffused, extending to men of all races, to the imbecile,
maimed, and other useless members of society, and finally to the lower
animals,- so would the standard of his morality rise higher and
higher. And it is admitted by moralists of the derivative school and
by some intuitionists, that the standard of morality has risen since
an early period in the history of man.*
* A writer in the North British Review (July, 1869, p. 531), well
capable of forming a sound judgment, expresses himself strongly in
favour of this conclusion. Mr. Lecky (History of Morals, vol. i., p.
143) seems to a certain extent to coincide therein.
As a struggle may sometimes be seen going on between the various
instincts of the lower animals, it is not surprising that there should
be a struggle in man between his social instincts, with their
derived virtues, and his lower, though momentarily stronger impulses
or desires. This, as Mr. Galton* has remarked, is all the less
surprising, as man has emerged from a state of barbarism within a
comparatively recent period. After having yielded to some temptation
we feel a sense of dissatisfaction, shame, repentance, or remorse,
analogous to the feelings caused by other powerful instincts or
desires, when left unsatisfied or baulked. We compare the weakened
impression of a past temptation with the ever present social
instincts, or with habits, gained in early youth and strengthened
during our whole lives, until they have become almost as strong as
instincts. If with the temptation still before us we do not yield,
it is because either the social instinct or some custom is at the
moment predominant, or because we have learnt that it will appear to
us hereafter the stronger, when compared with the weakened
impression of the temptation, and we realise that its violation
would cause us suffering. Looking to future generations, there is no
cause to fear that the social instincts will grow weaker, and we may
expect that virtuous habits will grow stronger, becoming perhaps fixed
by inheritance. In this case the struggle between our higher and lower
impulses will be less severe, and virtue will be triumphant.
* See his remarkable work on Hereditary Genius, 1869, p. 349. The
Duke of Argyll (Primeval Man, 1869, p. 188) has some good remarks on
the contest in man's nature between right and wrong.
Summary of the last two Chapters.- There can be no doubt that the
difference between the mind of the lowest man and that of the
highest animal is immense. An anthropomorphous ape, if he could take a
dispassionate view of his own case, would admit that though he could
form an artful plan to plunder a garden- though he could use stones
for fighting or for breaking open nuts, yet that the thought of
fashioning a stone into a tool was quite beyond his scope. Still less,
as he would admit, could he follow out a train of metaphysical
reasoning, or solve a mathematical problem, or reflect on God, or
admire a grand natural scene. Some apes, however, would probably
declare that they could and did admire the beauty of the coloured skin
and fur of their partners in marriage. They would admit, that though
they could make other apes understand by cries some of their
perceptions and simpler wants, the notion of expressing definite ideas
by definite sounds had never crossed their minds. They might insist
that they were ready to aid their fellow-apes of the same troop in
many ways, to risk their lives for them, and to take charge of their
orphans; but they would be forced to acknowledge that disinterested
love for all living creatures, the most noble attribute of man, was
quite beyond their comprehension.
Nevertheless the difference in mind between man and the higher
animals, great as it is, certainly is one of degree and not of kind.
We have seen that the senses and intuitions, the various emotions
and faculties, such as love, memory, attention, curiosity,
imitation, reason, &c., of which man boasts, may be found in an
incipient, or even sometimes in a well-developed condition, in the
lower animals. They are also capable of some inherited improvement, as
we see in the domestic dog compared with the wolf or jackal. If it
could be proved that certain high mental powers, such as the formation
of general concepts, self-consciousness, &c., were absolutely peculiar
to man, which seems extremely doubtful, it is not improbable that
these qualities are merely the incidental results of other
highly-advanced intellectual faculties; and these again mainly the
result of the continued use of a perfect language. At what age does
the new-born infant possess the power of abstraction, or become
self-conscious, and reflect on its own existence? We cannot answer;
nor can we answer in regard to the ascending organic scale. The
half-art, half-instinct of language still bears the stamp of its
gradual evolution. The ennobling belief in God is not universal with
man; and the belief in spiritual agencies naturally follows from other
mental powers. The moral sense perhaps affords the best and highest
distinction between man and the lower animals; but I need say
nothing on this head, as I have so lately endeavoured to shew that the
social instincts,- the prime principle of man's moral constitution*
- with the aid of active intellectual powers and the effects of habit,
naturally lead to the golden rule, "As ye would that men should do
to you, do ye to them likewise"; and this lies at the foundation of
morality.
* Marcus Aurelius, Meditations, Bk. V, sect. 55.
In the next chapter I shall make some few remarks on the probable
steps and means by which the several mental and moral faculties of man
have been gradually evolved. That such evolution is at least possible,
ought not to be denied, for we daily see these faculties developing in
every infant; and we may trace a perfect gradation from the mind of an
utter idiot, lower than that of an animal low in the scale, to the
mind of a Newton.
CHAPTER V.
ON THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE INTELLECTUAL AND MORAL FACULTIES.
DURING PRIMEVAL AND CIVILISED TIMES.
THE subjects to be discussed in this chapter are of the highest
interest, but are treated by me in an imperfect and fragmentary
manner. Mr. Wallace, in an admirable paper before referred to,* argues
that man, after he had partially acquired those intellectual and moral
faculties which distinguish him from the lower animals, would have
been but little liable to bodily modifications through natural
selection or any other means. For man is enabled through his mental
faculties "to keep with an unchanged body in harmony with the changing
universe." He has great power of adapting his habits to new conditions
of life. He invents weapons, tools, and various stratagems to
procure food and to defend himself. When he migrates into a colder
climate he uses clothes, builds sheds, and makes fires; and by the aid
of fire cooks food otherwise indigestible. He aids his fellow-men in
many ways, and anticipates future events. Even at a remote period he
practised some division of labour.
* Anthropological Review, May, 1864, p. clviii.
The lower animals, on the other hand, must have their bodily
structure modified in order to survive under greatly changed
conditions. They must be rendered stronger, or acquire more
effective teeth or claws, for defence against new enemies; or they
must be reduced in size, so as to escape detection and danger. When
they migrate into a colder climate, they must become clothed with
thicker fur, or have their constitutions altered. If they fail to be
thus modified, they will cease to exist.
The case, however, is widely different, as Mr. Wallace has with
justice insisted, in relation to the intellectual and moral
faculties of man. These faculties are variable; and we have every
reason to believe that the variations tend to be inherited. Therefore,
if they were formerly of high importance to primeval man and to his
ape-like progenitors, they would have been perfected or advanced
through natural selection. Of the high importance of the
intellectual faculties there can be no doubt, for man mainly owes to
them his predominant position in the world. We can see, that in the
rudest state of society, the individuals who were the most
sagacious, who invented and used the best weapons or traps, and who
were best able to defend themselves, would rear the greatest number of
offspring. The tribes, which included the largest number of men thus
endowed, would increase in number and supplant other tribes. Numbers
depend primarily on the means of subsistence, and this depends
partly on the physical nature of the country, but in a much higher
degree on the arts which are there practised. As a tribe increases and
is victorious, it is often still further increased by the absorption
of other tribes.* The stature and strength of the men of a tribe are
likewise of some importance for its success, and these depend in
part on the nature and amount of the food which can be obtained. In
Europe the men of the Bronze period were supplanted by a race more
powerful, and, judging from their sword-handles, with larger
hands;*(2) but their success was probably still more due to their
superiority in the arts.
* After a time the members of tribes which are absorbed into another
tribe assume, as Sir Henry Maine remarks (Ancient Law, 1861, p.
131), that they are the co-descendants of the same ancestors.
*(2) Morlot, Soc. Vaud. Sc. Nat., 1860, p. 294.
All that we know about savages, or may infer from their traditions
and from old monuments, the history of which is quite forgotten by the
present inhabitants, shew that from the remotest times successful
tribes have supplanted other tribes. Relics of extinct or forgotten
tribes have been discovered throughout the civilised regions of the
earth, on the wild plains of America, and on the isolated islands in
the Pacific Ocean. At the present day civilised nations are everywhere
supplanting barbarous nations, excepting where the climate opposes a
deadly barrier; and they succeed mainly, though not exclusively,
through their arts, which are the products of the intellect. It is,
therefore, highly probable that with mankind the intellectual
faculties have been mainly and gradually perfected through natural
selection; and this conclusion is sufficient for our purpose.
Undoubtedly it would be interesting to trace the development of each
separate faculty from the state in which it exists in the lower
animals to that in which it exists in man; but neither my ability
nor knowledge permits the attempt.
It deserves notice that, as soon as the progenitors of man became
social (and this probably occurred at a very early period), the
principle of imitation, and reason, and experience would have
increased, and much modified the intellectual powers in a way, of
which we see only traces in the lower animals. Apes are much given
to imitation, as are the lowest savages; and the simple fact
previously referred to, that after a time no animal can be caught in
the same place by the same sort of trap, shews that animals learn by
experience, and imitate the caution of others. Now, if some one man in
a tribe, more sagacious than the others, invented a new snare or
weapon, or other means of attack or defence, the plainest
self-interest, without the assistance of much reasoning power, would
prompt the other members to imitate him; and all would thus profit.
The habitual practice of each new art must likewise in some slight
degree strengthen the intellect. If the new invention were an
important one, the tribe would increase in number, spread, and
supplant other tribes. In a tribe thus rendered more numerous there
would always be a rather greater chance of the birth of other superior
and inventive members. If such men left children to inherit their
mental superiority, the chance of the birth of still more ingenious
members would be somewhat better, and in a very small tribe
decidedly better. Even if they left no children, the tribe would still
include their blood-relations; and it has been ascertained by
agriculturists* that by preserving and breeding from the family of
an animal, which when slaughtered was found to be valuable, the
desired character has been obtained.
* I have given instances in my Variation of Animals under
Domestication, vol. ii., p. 196.
Turning now to the social and moral faculties. In order that
primeval men, or the apelike progenitors of man, should become social,
they must have acquired the same instinctive feelings, which impel
other animals to live in a body; and they no doubt exhibited the
same general disposition. They would have felt uneasy when separated
from their comrades, for whom they would have felt some degree of
love; they would have warned each other of danger, and have given
mutual aid in attack or defence. All this implies some degree of
sympathy, fidelity, and courage. Such social qualities, the
paramount importance of which to the lower animals is disputed by no
one, were no doubt acquired by the progenitors of man in a similar
manner, namely, through natural selection, aided by inherited habit.
When two tribes of primeval man, living in the same country, came into
competition, if (other circumstances being equal) the one tribe
included a great number of courageous, sympathetic and faithful
members, who were always ready to warn each other of danger, to aid
and defend each other, this tribe would succeed better and conquer the
other. Let it be borne in mind how all-important in the
never-ceasing wars of savages, fidelity and courage must be. The
advantage which disciplined soldiers have over undisciplined hordes
follows chiefly from the confidence which each man feels in his
comrades. Obedience, as Mr. Bagehot has well shewn,* is of the highest
value, for any form of government is better than none. Selfish and
contentious people will not cohere, and without coherence nothing
can be effected. A tribe rich in the above qualities would spread
and be victorious over other tribes: but in the course of time it
would, judging from all past history, be in its turn overcome by
some other tribe still more highly endowed. Thus the social and
moral qualities would tend slowly to advance and be diffused
throughout the world.
* See a remarkable series of articles on "Physics and Politics,"
in the Fortnightly Review, Nov., 1867; April 1, 1868; July 1, 1869,
since separately published.
But it may be asked, how within the limits of the same tribe did a
large number of members first become endowed with these social and
moral qualities, and how was the standard of excellence raised? It
is extremely doubtful whether the offspring of the more sympathetic
and benevolent parents, or of those who were the most faithful to
their comrades, would be reared in greater numbers than the children
of selfish and treacherous parents belonging to the same tribe. He who
was ready to sacrifice his life, as many a savage has been, rather
than betray his comrades, would often leave no offspring to inherit
his noble nature. The bravest men, who were always willing to come
to the front in war, and who freely risked their lives for others,
would on an average perish in larger numbers than other men.
Therefore, it hardly seems probable that the number of men gifted with
such virtues, or that the standard of their excellence, could be
increased through natural selection, that is, by the survival of the
fittest; for we are not here speaking of one tribe being victorious
over another.
Although the circumstances, leading to an increase in the number
of those thus endowed within the same tribe, are too complex to be
clearly followed out, we can trace some of the probable steps. In
the first place, as the reasoning powers and foresight of the
members became improved, each man would soon learn that if he aided
his fellow-men, he would commonly receive aid in return. From this low
motive he might acquire the habit of aiding his fellows; and the habit
of performing benevolent actions certainly strengthens the feeling
of sympathy which gives the first impulse to benevolent actions.
Habits, moreover, followed during many generations probably tend to be
inherited.
But another and much more powerful stimulus to the development of
the social virtues, is afforded by the praise and the blame of our
fellow-men. To the instinct of sympathy, as we have already seen, it
is primarily due, that we habitually bestow both praises and blame
on others, whilst we love the former and dread the latter when applied
to ourselves; and this instinct no doubt was originally acquired, like
all the other social instincts, through natural selection. At how
early a period the progenitors of man in the course of their
development, became capable of feeling and being impelled by, the
praise or blame of their fellow-creatures, we cannot of course say.
But it appears that even dogs appreciate encouragement, praise, and
blame. The rudest savages feel the sentiment of glory, as they clearly
show by preserving the trophies of their prowess, by their habit of
excessive boasting, and even by the extreme care which they take of
their personal appearance and decorations; for unless they regarded
the opinion of their comrades, such habits would be senseless.
They certainly feel shame at the breach of some of their lesser
rules, and apparently remorse, as shewn by the case of the
Australian who grew thin and could not rest from having delayed to
murder some other woman, so as to propitiate his dead wife's spirit.
Though I have not met with any other recorded case, it is scarcely
credible that a savage, who will sacrifice his life rather than betray
his tribe, or one who will deliver himself up as a prisoner rather
than break his parole,* would not feel remorse in his inmost soul,
if he had failed in a duty, which he held sacred.
* Mr. Wallace gives cases in his Contributions to the Theory of
Natural Selection, 1870, p. 354.
We may therefore conclude that primeval man, at a very remote
period, was influenced by the praise and blame of his fellows. It is
obvious, that the members of the same tribe would approve of conduct
which appeared to them to be for the general good, and would reprobate
that which appeared evil. To do good unto others- to do unto others as
ye would they should do unto you- is the foundation-stone of morality.
It is, therefore, hardly possible to exaggerate the importance
during rude times of the love of praise and the dread of blame. A
man who was not impelled by any deep, instinctive feeling, to
sacrifice his life for the good of others, yet was roused to such
actions by a sense of glory, would by his example excite the same wish
for glory in other men, and would strengthen by exercise the noble
feeling of admiration. He might thus do far more good to his tribe
than by begetting offspring with a tendency to inherit his own high
character.
With increased experience and reason, man perceives the more
remote consequences of his actions, and the self-regarding virtues,
such as temperance, chastity, &c., which during early times are, as we
have before seen, utterly disregarded, come to be highly esteemed or
even held sacred. I need not, however, repeat what I have said on this
head in the fourth chapter. Ultimately our moral sense or conscience
becomes a highly complex sentiment- originating in the social
instincts, largely guided by the approbation of our fellow-men,
ruled by reason, self-interest, and in later times by deep religious
feelings, and confirmed by instruction and habit.
It must not be forgotten that although a high standard of morality
gives but a slight or no advantage to each individual man and his
children over the other men of the same tribe, yet that an increase in
the number of well-endowed men and an advancement in the standard of
morality will certainly give an immense advantage to one tribe over
another. A tribe including many members who, from possessing in a high
degree the spirit of patriotism, fidelity, obedience, courage, and
sympathy, were always ready to aid one another, and to sacrifice
themselves for the common good, would be victorious over most other
tribes; and this would be natural selection. At all times throughout
the world tribes have supplanted other tribes; and as morality is
one important element in their success, the standard of morality and
the number of well-endowed men will thus everywhere tend to rise and
increase.
It is, however, very difficult to form any judgment why one
particular tribe and not another has been successful and has risen
in the scale of civilisation. Many savages are in the same condition
as when first discovered several centuries ago. As Mr. Bagehot has
remarked, we are apt to look at the progress as normal in human
society; but history refutes this. The ancients did not even entertain
the idea, nor do the Oriental nations at the present day. According to
another high authority, Sir Henry Maine, "The greatest part of mankind
has never shewn a particle of desire that its civil institutions
should be improved."* Progress seems to depend on many concurrent
favourable conditions, far too complex to be followed out. But it
has often been remarked, that a cool climate, from leading to industry
and to the various arts, has been highly favourable thereto. The
Esquimaux, pressed by hard necessity, have succeeded in many ingenious
inventions, but their climate has been too severe for continued
progress. Nomadic habits, whether over wide plains, or through the
dense forests of the tropics, or along the shores of the sea, have
in every case been highly detrimental. Whilst observing the
barbarous inhabitants of Tierra del Fuego, it struck me that the
possession of some property, a fixed abode, and the union of many
families under a chief, were the indispensable requisites for
civilisation. Such habits almost necessitate the cultivation of the
ground and the first steps in cultivation would probably result, as
I have elsewhere shewn,*(2) from some such accident as the seeds of
a fruit-tree falling on a heap of refuse, and producing an unusually
fine variety. The problem, however, of the first advance of savages
towards civilisation is at present much too difficult to be solved.
* Ancient Law, 1861, p. 22. For Mr. Bagehot's remarks, Fortnightly
Review, April 1, 1868, p. 452.
*(2) The Variation of Animals and Plants under Domestication, vol.
i., p. 309.
Natural Selection as affecting Civilised Nations.- I have hitherto
only considered the advancement of man from a semi-human condition
to that of the modern savage. But some remarks on the action of
natural selection on civilised nations may be worth adding. This
subject has been ably discussed by Mr. W. R. Greg,* and previously
by Mr. Wallace and Mr. Galton.*(2) Most of my remarks are taken from
these three authors. With savages, the weak in body or mind are soon
eliminated; and those that survive commonly exhibit a vigorous state
of health. We civilised men, on the other hand, do our utmost to check
the process of elimination; we build asylums for the imbecile, the
maimed, and the sick; we institute poor-laws; and our medical men
exert their utmost skill to save the life of every one to the last
moment. There is reason to believe that vaccination has preserved
thousands, who from a weak constitution would formerly have
succumbed to small-pox. Thus the weak members of civilised societies
propagate their kind. No one who has attended to the breeding of
domestic animals will doubt that this must be highly injurious to
the race of man. It is surprising how soon a want of care, or care
wrongly directed, leads to the degeneration of a domestic race; but
excepting in the case of man himself, hardly any one is so ignorant as
to allow his worst animals to breed.
* Fraser's Magazine, Sept., 1868, p. 353. This article seems to have
struck many persons, and has given rise to two remarkable essays and a
rejoinder in the Spectator, Oct. 3 and 17, 1868. It has also been
discussed in the Quarterly Journal of Science, 1869, p. 152, and by
Mr. Lawson Tait in the Dublin Quarterly Journal of Medical Science,
Feb., 1869, and by Mr. E. Ray Lankester in his Comparative
Longevity, 1870, p. 128. Similar views appeared previously in the
Australasian, July 13, 1867. I have borrowed ideas from several of
these writers.
*(2) For Mr. Wallace, see Anthropological Review, as before cited.
Mr. Galton in Macmillan's Magazine, Aug., 1865, p. 318; also his great
work, Hereditary Genius, 1870.
The aid which we feel impelled to give to the helpless is mainly
an incidental result of the instinct of sympathy, which was originally
acquired as part of the social instincts, but subsequently rendered,
in the manner previously indicated, more tender and more widely
diffused. Nor could we check our sympathy, even at the urging of
hard reason, without deterioration in the noblest part of our
nature. The surgeon may harden himself whilst performing an operation,
for he knows that he is acting for the good of his patient; but if
we were intentionally to neglect the weak and helpless, it could
only be for a contingent benefit, with an overwhelming present evil.
We must therefore bear the undoubtedly bad effects of the weak
surviving and propagating their kind; but there appears to be at least
one check in steady action, namely that the weaker and inferior
members of society do not marry so freely as the sound; and this check
might be indefinitely increased by the weak in body or mind refraining
from marriage, though this is more to be hoped for than expected.
In every country in which a large standing army is kept up, the
finest young men are taken by the conscription or are enlisted. They
are thus exposed to early death during war, are often tempted into
vice, and are prevented from marrying during the prime of life. On the
other hand the shorter and feebler men, with poor constitutions, are
left at home, and consequently have a much better chance of marrying
and propagating their kind.*
* Prof. H. Fick (Einfluss der Naturwissenschaft auf das Recht, June,
1872) has some good remarks on this head, and on other such points.
Man accumulates property and bequeaths it to his children, so that
the children of the rich have an advantage over the poor in the race
for success, independently of bodily or mental superiority. On the
other hand, the children of parents who are short-lived, and are
therefore on an average deficient in health and vigour, come into
their property sooner than other children, and will be likely to marry
earlier, and leave a larger number of offspring to inherit their
inferior constitutions. But the inheritance of property by itself is
very far from an evil; for without the accumulation of capital the
arts could not progress; and it is chiefly through their power that
the civilised races have extended, and are now everywhere extending
their range, so as to take the place of the lower races. Nor does
the moderate accumulation of wealth interfere with the process of
selection. When a poor man becomes moderately rich, his children enter
trades or professions in which there is struggle enough, so that the
able in body and mind succeed best. The presence of a body of
well-instructed men, who have not to labour for their daily bread,
is important to a degree which cannot be over-estimated; as all high
intellectual work is carried on by them, and on such work, material
progress of all kinds mainly depends, not to mention other and
higher advantages. No doubt wealth when very great tends to convert
men into useless drones, but their number is never large; and some
degree of elimination here occurs, for we daily see rich men, who
happen to be fools or profligate, squandering away their wealth.
Primogeniture with entailed estates is a more direct evil, though it
may formerly have been a great advantage by the creation of a dominant
class, and any government is better than none. Most eldest sons,
though they may be weak in body or mind, marry, whilst the younger
sons, however superior in these respects, do not so generally marry.
Nor can worthless eldest sons with entailed estates squander their
wealth. But here, as elsewhere, the relations of civilised life are so
complex that some compensatory checks intervene. The men who are
rich through primogeniture are able to select generation after
generation the more beautiful and charming women; and these must
generally be healthy in body and active in mind. The evil
consequences, such as they may be, of the continued preservation of
the same line of descent, without any selection, are checked by men of
rank always wishing to increase their wealth and power; and this
they effect by marrying heiresses. But the daughters of parents who
have produced single children, are themselves, as Mr. Galton* has
shewn, apt to be sterile; and thus noble families are continually
cut off in the direct line, and their wealth flows into some side
channel; but unfortunately this channel is not determined by
superiority of any kind.
* Hereditary Genius, 1870, pp. 132-140.
Although civilisation thus checks in many ways the action of natural
selection, it apparently favours the better development of the body,
by means of good food and the freedom from occasional hardships.
This may be inferred from civilised men having been found, wherever
compared, to be physically stronger than savages.* They appear also to
have equal powers of endurance, as has been proved in many adventurous
expeditions. Even the great luxury of the rich can be but little
detrimental; for the expectation of life of our aristocracy, at all
ages and of both sexes, is very little inferior to that of healthy
English lives in the lower classes.*(2)
* Quatrefages, Revue des Cours Scientifiques 1867-68, p. 659.
*(2) See the fifth and sixth columns compiled from good authorities,
in the table given in Mr. E. R. Lankester's Comparative Longevity,
1870, p. 115.
We will now look to the intellectual faculties. If in each grade
of society the members were divided into two equal bodies, the one
including the intellectually superior and the other the inferior,
there can be little doubt that the former would succeed best in all
occupations, and rear a greater number of children. Even in the lowest
walks of life, skill and ability must be of some advantage; though
in many occupations, owing to the great division of labour, a very
small one. Hence in civilised nations there will be some tendency to
an increase both in the number and in the standard of the
intellectually able. But I do not wish to assert that this tendency
may not be more than counterbalanced in other ways, as by the
multiplication of the reckless and improvident; but even to such as
these, ability must be some advantage.
It has often been objected to views like the foregoing, that the
most eminent men who have ever lived have left no offspring to inherit
their great intellect. Mr. Galton says, "I regret I am unable to solve
the simple question whether, and how far, men and women who are
prodigies of genius are infertile. I have, however, shewn that men
of eminence are by no means so."* Great lawgivers, the founders of
beneficent religions, great philosophers and discoverers in science,
aid the progress of mankind in a far higher degree by their works than
by leaving a numerous progeny. In the case of corporeal structures, it
is the selection of the slightly better-endowed and the elimination of
the slightly less well-endowed individuals, and not the preservation
of strongly-marked and rare anomalies, that leads to the advancement
of a species.*(2) So it will be with the intellectual faculties, since
the somewhat abler men in each grade of society succeed rather
better than the less able, and consequently increase in number, if not
otherwise prevented. When in any nation the standard of intellect
and the number of intellectual men have increased, we may expect
from the law of the deviation from an average, that prodigies of
genius will, as shewn by Mr. Galton, appear somewhat more frequently
than before.
* Hereditary Genius, 1870, p. 330.
*(2) Origin of Species.(OOS)
In regard to the moral qualities, some elimination of the worst
dispositions is always in progress even in the most civilised nations.
Malefactors are executed, or imprisoned for long periods, so that they
cannot freely transmit their bad qualities. Melancholic and insane
persons are confined, or commit suicide. Violent and quarrelsome men
often come to a bloody end. The restless who will not follow any
steady occupation- and this relic of barbarism is a great check to
civilisation* - emigrate to newly-settled countries; where they
prove useful pioneers. Intemperance is so highly destructive, that the
expectation of life of the intemperate, at the age of thirty for
instance, is only 13.8 years; whilst for the rural labourers of
England at the same age it is 40.59 years.*(2) Profligate women bear
few children, and profligate men rarely marry; both suffer from
disease. In the breeding of domestic animals, the elimination of those
individuals, though few in number, which are in any marked manner
inferior, is by no means an unimportant element towards success.
This especially holds good with injurious characters which tend to
reappear through reversion, such as blackness in sheep; and with
mankind some of the worst dispositions, which occasionally without any
assignable cause make their appearance in families, may perhaps be
reversions to a savage state, from which we are not removed by very
many generations. This view seems indeed recognised in the common
expression that such men are the black sheep of the family.
* Hereditary Genius, 1870, p. 347.
*(2) E Ray Lankester, Comparative Longevity, 1870, p. 115. The table
of the intemperate is from Neison's Vital Statistics. In regard to
profligacy, see Dr. Farr, "Influence of Marriage on Mortality," Nat.
Assoc. for the Promotion of Social Science, 1858.
With civilised nations, as far as an advanced standard of
morality, and an increased number of fairly good men are concerned,
natural selection apparently effects but little; though the
fundamental social instincts were originally thus gained. But I have
already said enough, whilst treating of the lower races, on the causes
which lead to the advance of morality, namely, the approbation of
our fellow-men- the strengthening of our sympathies by habit-
example and imitation- reason- experience, and even self-interest-
instruction during youth, and religious feelings.
A most important obstacle in civilised countries to an increase in
the number of men of a superior class has been strongly insisted on by
Mr. Greg and Mr. Galton,* namely, the fact that the very poor and
reckless, who are often degraded by vice, almost invariably marry
early, whilst the careful and frugal, who are generally otherwise
virtuous, marry late in life, so that they may be able to support
themselves and their children in comfort. Those who marry early
produce within a given period not only a greater number of
generations, but, as shewn by Dr. Duncan,*(2) they produce many more
children. The children, moreover, that are borne by mothers during the
prime of life are heavier and larger, and therefore probably more
vigorous, than those born at other periods. Thus the reckless,
degraded, and often vicious members of society, tend to increase at
a quicker rate than the provident and generally virtuous members. Or
as Mr. Greg puts the case: "The careless, squalid, unaspiring Irishman
multiplies like rabbits: the frugal, foreseeing, self-respecting,
ambitious Scot, stern in his morality, spiritual in his faith,
sagacious and disciplined in his intelligence, passes his best years
in struggle and in celibacy, marries late, and leaves few behind
him. Given a land originally peopled by a thousand Saxons and a
thousand Celts- and in a dozen generations five-sixths of the
population would be Celts, but five-sixths of the property, of the
power, of the intellect, would belong to the one-sixth of Saxons
that remained. In the eternal 'struggle for existence,' it would be
the inferior and less favoured race that had prevailed- and
prevailed by virtue not of its good qualities but of its faults."
* Fraser's Magazine, Sept., 1868, p. 353. Macmillan's Magazine,
Aug., 1865, p. 318. The Rev. F. W. Farrar (Fraser's Magazine, Aug.,
1870, p. 264) takes a different view.
*(2) "On the Laws of the Fertility of Women," in Transactions of the
Royal Society, Edinburgh, vol. xxiv., p. 287; now published separately
under the title of Fecundity, Fertility, and Sterility, 1871. See,
also, Mr. Galton, Hereditary Genius pp. 352-357, for observations to
the above effect.
There are, however, some checks to this downward tendency. We have
seen that the intemperate suffer from a high rate of mortality, and
the extremely profligate leave few offspring. The poorest classes
crowd into towns, and it has been proved by Dr. Stark from the
statistics of ten years in Scotland,* that at all ages the
death-rate is higher in towns than in rural districts, "and during the
first five years of life the town death-rate is almost exactly
double that of the rural districts." As these returns include both the
rich and the poor, no doubt more than twice the number of births would
be requisite to keep up the number of the very poor inhabitants in the
towns, relatively to those in the country. With women, marriage at too
early an age is highly injurious; for it has been found in France
that, "Twice as many wives under twenty die in the year, as died out
of the same number of the unmarried." The mortality, also, of husbands
under twenty is "excessively high,"*(2) but what the cause of this may
be, seems doubtful. Lastly, if the men who prudently delay marrying
until they can bring up their families in comfort, were to select,
as they often do, women in the prime of life, the rate of increase
in the better class would be only slightly lessened.
* Tenth Annual Report of Births, Deaths, &c., in Scotland, 1867,
p. xxix.
*(2) These quotations are taken from our highest authority on such
questions, namely, Dr. Farr, in his paper "On the Influence of
Marriage on the Mortality of the French People," read before the
Nat. Assoc. for the Promotion of Social Science, 1858.
It was established from an enormous body of statistics, taken during
1853, that the unmarried men throughout France, between the ages of
twenty and eighty, die in a much larger proportion than the married:
for instance, out of every 1000 unmarried men, between the ages of
twenty and thirty, 11.3 annually died, whilst of the married, only 6.5
died.* A similar law was proved to hold good, during the years 1863
and 1864, with the entire population above the age of twenty in
Scotland: for instance, out of every 1000 unmarried men, between the
ages of twenty and thirty, 14.97 annually died, whilst of the
married only 7.24 died, that is less than half.*(2) Dr. Stark
remarks on this, "Bachelorhood is more destructive to life than the
most unwholesome trades, or than residence in an unwholesome house
or district where there has never been the most distant attempt at
sanitary improvement." He considers that the lessened mortality is the
direct result of "marriage, and the more regular domestic habits which
attend that state." He admits, however, that the intemperate,
profligate, and criminal classes, whose duration of life is low, do
not commonly marry; and it must likewise be admitted that men with a
weak constitution, ill health, or any great infirmity in body or mind,
will often not wish to marry, or will be rejected. Dr. Stark seems
to have come to the conclusion that marriage in itself is a main cause
of prolonged life, from finding that aged married men still have a
considerable advantage in this respect over the unmarried of the
same advanced age; but every one must have known instances of men, who
with weak health during youth did not marry, and yet have survived
to old age, though remaining weak, and therefore with a lessened
chance of life or of marrying. There is another remarkable
circumstance which seems to support Dr. Stark's conclusion, namely,
that widows and widowers in France suffer in comparison with the
married a very heavy rate of mortality; but Dr. Farr attributes this
to the poverty and evil habits consequent on the disruption of the
family, and to grief. On the whole we may conclude with Dr. Farr
that the lesser mortality of married than of unmarried men, which
seems to be a general law, "is mainly due to the constant
elimination of imperfect types, and to the skilful selection of the
finest individuals out of each successive generation"; the selection
relating only to the marriage state, and acting on all corporeal,
intellectual, and moral qualities.*(3) We may, therefore, infer that
sound and good men who out of prudence remain for a time unmarried, do
not suffer a high rate of mortality.
* Dr. Farr, ibid. The quotations given below are extracted from
the same striking paper.
*(2) I have taken the mean of the quinquennial means, given in the
Tenth Annual Report of Births, Deaths, &c., in Scotland, 1867. The
quotation from Dr. Stark is copied from an article in the Daily
News, Oct. 17, 1868. which Dr. Farr considers very carefully written.
*(3) Dr. Duncan remarks (Fecundity, Fertility, &c., 1871, p. 334) on
this subject: "At every age the healthy and beautiful go over from the
unmarried side to the married, leaving the unmarried columns crowded
with the sickly and unfortunate."
If the various checks specified in the two last paragraphs, and
perhaps others as yet unknown, do not prevent the reckless, the
vicious and otherwise inferior members of society from increasing at a
quicker rate than the better class of men, the nation will retrograde,
as has too often occurred in the history of the world. We must
remember that progress is no invariable rule. It is very difficult
to say why one civilised nation rises, becomes more powerful, and
spreads more widely, than another; or why the same nation progresses
more quickly at one time than at another. We can only say that it
depends on an increase in the actual number of the population, on
the number of men endowed with high intellectual and moral
faculties, as well as on their standard of excellence. Corporeal
structure appears to have little influence, except so far as vigour of
body leads to vigour of mind.
It has been urged by several writers that as high intellectual
powers are advantageous to a nation, the old Greeks, who stood some
grades higher in intellect than any race that has ever existed,*
ought, if the power of natural selection were real, to have risen
still higher in the scale, increased in number, and stocked the
whole of Europe. Here we have the tacit assumption, so often made with
respect to corporeal structures, that there is some innate tendency
towards continued development in mind and body. But development of all
kinds depends on many concurrent favourable circumstances. Natural
selection acts only tentatively. Individuals and races may have
acquired certain indisputable advantages, and yet have perished from
failing in other characters. The Greeks may have retrograded from a
want of coherence between the many small states, from the small size
of their whole country, from the practice of slavery, or from
extreme sensuality; for they did not succumb until "they were
enervated and corrupt to the very core."*(2) The western nations of
Europe, who now so immeasurably surpass their former savage
progenitors, and stand at the summit of civilisation, owe little or
none of their superiority to direct inheritance from the old Greeks,
though they owe much to the written works of that wonderful people.
* See the ingenious and original argument on this subject by Mr.
Galton, Hereditary Genius, pp. 340-342.
*(2) Mr. Greg, Fraser's Magazine, Sept., 1868, p. 357.
Who can positively say why the Spanish nation, so dominant at one
time, has been distanced in the race? The awakening of the nations
of Europe from the dark ages is a still more perplexing problem. At
that early period, as Mr. Galton has remarked, almost all the men of a
gentle nature, those given to meditation or culture of the mind, had
no refuge except in the bosom of a Church which demanded celibacy;*
and this could hardly fail to have had a deteriorating influence on
each successive generation. During this same period the Holy
Inquisition selected with extreme care the freest and boldest men in
order to burn or imprison them. In Spain alone some of the best men-
those who doubted and questioned, and without doubting there can be no
progress- were eliminated during three centuries at the rate of a
thousand a year. The evil which the Catholic Church has thus
effected is incalculable, though no doubt counterbalanced to a
certain, perhaps to a large, extent in other ways; nevertheless,
Europe has progressed at an unparalleled rate.
* Hereditary Genius, 1870, pp. 357-359. The Rev. F. W. Farrar
(Fraser's Magazine, Aug., 1870, p. 257) advances arguments on the
other side. Sir C. Lyell had already (Principles of Geology, vol. ii.,
1868, p. 489), in a striking passage, called attention to the evil
influence of the Holy Inquisition in having, through selection,
lowered the general standard of intelligence in Europe.
The remarkable success of the English as colonists, compared to
other European nations, has been ascribed to their "daring and
persistent energy"; a result which is well illustrated by comparing
the progress of the Canadians of English and French extraction; but
who can say how the English gained their energy? There is apparently
much truth in the belief that the wonderful progress of the United
States, as well as the character of the people, are the results of
natural selection; for the more energetic, restless, and courageous
men from all parts of Europe have emigrated during the last ten or
twelve generations to that great country, and have there succeeded
best.* Looking to the distant future, I do not think that the Rev. Mr.
Zincke takes an exaggerated view when he says:*(2) "All other series
of events- as that which resulted in the culture of mind in Greece,
and that which resulted in the empire of Rome- only appear to have
purpose and value when viewed in connection with, or rather as
subsidiary to... the great stream of Anglo-Saxon emigration to the
west." Obscure as is the problem of the advance of civilisation, we
can at least see that a nation which produced during a lengthened
period the greatest number of highly intellectual, energetic, brave,
patriotic, and benevolent men, would generally prevail over less
favoured nations.
* Mr. Galton, Macmillan's Magazine, August, 1865, p. 325. See
also, Nature, "On Darwinism and National Life," Dec., 1869, p. 184.
*(2) Last Winter in the United States, 1868, p. 29.
Natural selection follows from the struggle for existence; and
this from a rapid rate of increase. It is impossible not to regret
bitterly, but whether wisely is another question, the rate at which
man tends to increase; for this leads in barbarous tribes to
infanticide and many other evils, and in civilised nations to abject
poverty, celibacy, and to the late marriages of the prudent. But as
man suffers from the same physical evils as the lower animals, he
has no right to expect an immunity from the evils consequent on the
struggle for existence. Had he not been subjected during primeval
times to natural selection, assuredly he would never have attained
to his present rank. Since we see in many parts of the world
enormous areas of the most fertile land capable of supporting numerous
happy homes, but peopled only by a few wandering savages, it might
be argued that the struggle for existence had not been sufficiently
severe to force man upwards to his highest standard. Judging from
all that we know of man and the lower animals, there has always been
sufficient variability in their intellectual and moral faculties,
for a steady advance through natural selection. No doubt such
advance demands many favourable concurrent circumstances; but it may
well be doubted whether the most favourable would have sufficed, had
not the rate of increase been rapid, and the consequent struggle for
existence extremely severe. It even appears from what we see, for
instance, in parts of S. America, that a people which may be called
civilised, such as the Spanish settlers, is liable to become
indolent and to retrograde, when the conditions of life are very easy.
With highly civilised nations continued progress depends in a
subordinate degree on natural selection; for such nations do not
supplant and exterminate one another as do savage tribes. Nevertheless
the more intelligent members within the same community will succeed
better in the long run than the inferior, and leave a more numerous
progeny, and this is a form of natural selection. The more efficient
causes of progress seem to consist of a good education during youth
whilst the brain is impressible, and of a high standard of excellence,
inculcated by the ablest and best men, embodied in the laws, customs
and traditions of the nation, and enforced by public opinion. It
should, however, be borne in mind, that the enforcement of public
opinion depends on our appreciation of the approbation and
disapprobation of others; and this appreciation is founded on our
sympathy, which it can hardly be doubted was originally developed
through natural selection as one of the most important elements of the
social instincts.*
* I am much indebted to Mr. John Morley for some good criticisms
on this subject: see, also Broca, "Les Selections," Revue
d'Anthropologie, 1872.
On the evidence that all civilised nations were once barbarous.- The
present subject has been treated in so full and admirable a manner
by Sir J. Lubbock,* Mr. Tylor, Mr. M'Lennan, and others, that I need
here give only the briefest summary of their results. The arguments
recently advanced by the Duke of Argyll*(2) and formerly by Archbishop
Whately, in favour of the belief that man came into the world as a
civilised being, and that all savages have since undergone
degradation, seem to me weak in comparison with those advanced on
the other side. Many nations, no doubt, have fallen away in
civilisation, and some may have lapsed into utter barbarism, though on
this latter head I have met with no evidence. The Fuegians were
probably compelled by other conquering hordes to settle in their
inhospitable country, and they may have become in consequence somewhat
more degraded; but it would be difficult to prove that they have
fallen much below the Botocudos, who inhabit the finest parts of
Brazil.
* "On the Origin of Civilisation," Proceedings of the Ethnological
Society, Nov. 26, 1867.
*(2) Primeval Man, 1869.
The evidence that all civilised nations are the descendants of
barbarians, consists, on the one side, of clear traces of their former
low condition in still-existing customs, beliefs, language, &c.; and
on the other side, of proofs that savages are independently able to
raise themselves a few steps in the scale of civilisation, and have
actually thus risen. The evidence on the first head is extremely
curious, but cannot be here given: I refer to such cases as that of
the art of enumeration, which, as Mr. Tylor clearly shews by reference
to the words still used in some places, originated in counting the
fingers, first of one hand and then of the other, and lastly of the
toes. We have traces of this in our own decimal system, and in the
Roman numerals, where, after the V, which is supposed to be an
abbreviated picture of a human hand, we pass on to VI, &c., when the
other hand no doubt was used. So again, "When we speak of
three-score and ten, we are counting by the vigesimal system, each
score thus ideally made, standing for 20- for 'one man' as a Mexican
or Carib would put it."* According to a large and increasing school of
philologists, every language bears the marks of its slow and gradual
evolution. So it is with the art of writing, for letters are rudiments
of pictorial representations. It is hardly possible to read Mr.
M'Lennan's work*(2) and not admit that almost all civilised nations
still retain traces of such rude habits as the forcible capture of
wives. What ancient nation, as the same author asks, can be named that
was originally monogamous? The primitive idea of justice, as shewn
by the law of battle and other customs of which vestiges still remain,
was likewise most rude. Many existing superstitions are the remnants
of former false religious beliefs. The highest form of religion- the
grand idea of God hating sin and loving righteousness- was unknown
during primeval times.
* Royal Institution of Great Britain, March 15, 1867. Also,
Researches into the Early History of Mankind, 1865.
*(2) Primitive Marriage, 1865. See, likewise, an excellent
article, evidently by the same author, in the North British Review,
July, 1869. Also, Mr. L. H. Morgan, "A Conjectural Solution of the
Origin of the Class, System of Relationship," in Proc. American
Acad. of Sciences, vol. vii., Feb., 1868. Prof. Schaaffhausen
(Anthropolog. Review, Oct., 1869, p. 373) remarks on "the vestiges
of human sacrifices found both in Homer and the Old Testament."
Turning to the other kind of evidence: Sir J. Lubbock has shewn that
some savages have recently improved a little in some of their
simpler arts. From the extremely curious account which he gives of the
weapons, tools, and arts, in use amongst savages in various parts of
the world, it cannot be doubted that these have nearly all been
independent discoveries, excepting perhaps the art of making fire.*
The Australian boomerang is a good instance of one such independent
discovery. The Tahitians when first visited had advanced in many
respects beyond the inhabitants of most of the other Polynesian
islands. There are no just grounds for the belief that the high
culture of the native Peruvians and Mexicans was derived from
abroad;*(2) many native plants were there cultivated, and a few native
animals domesticated. We should bear in mind that, judging from the
small influence of most missionaries, a wandering crew from some
semi-civilised land, if washed to the shores of America, would not
have produced any marked effect on the natives, unless they had
already become somewhat advanced. Looking to a very remote period in
the history of the world, we find, to use Sir J. Lubbock's
well-known terms, a paleolithic and neolithic period; and no one
will pretend that the art of grinding rough flint tools was a borrowed
one. In all parts of Europe, as far east as Greece, in Palestine,
India, Japan, New Zealand, and Africa, including Egypt, flint tools
have been discovered in abundance; and of their use the existing
inhabitants retain no tradition. There is also indirect evidence of
their former use by the Chinese and ancient Jews. Hence there can
hardly be a doubt that the inhabitants of these countries, which
include nearly the whole civilised world, were once in a barbarous
condition. To believe that man was aboriginally civilised and then
suffered utter degradation in so many regions, is to take a pitiably
low view of human nature. It is apparently a truer and more cheerful
view that progress has been much more general than retrogression; that
man has risen, though by slow and interrupted steps, from a lowly
condition to the highest standard as yet attained by him in knowledge,
morals and religion.
* Sir J. Lubbock, Prehistoric Times, 2nd ed., 1869, chaps. xv. and
xvi. et passim. See also the excellent 9th chapter in Tylor's Early
History of Mankind, 2nd ed., 1870.
*(2) Dr. F. Muller has made some good remarks to this effect in
the Reise der Novara: Anthropolog. Theil, Abtheil. iii., 1868, s. 127.
CHAPTER VI.
ON THE AFFINITIES AND GENEALOGY OF MAN.
EVEN if it be granted that the difference between man and his
nearest allies is as great in corporeal structure as some
naturalists maintain, and although we must grant that the difference
between them is immense in mental power, yet the facts given in the
earlier chapters appear to declare, in the plainest manner, that man
is descended from some lower form, notwithstanding that
connecting-links have not hitherto been discovered.
Man is liable to numerous, slight, and diversified variations, which
are induced by the same general causes, are governed and transmitted
in accordance with the same general laws, as in the lower animals. Man
has multiplied so rapidly, that he has necessarily been exposed to
struggle for existence, and consequently to natural selection. He
has given rise to many races, some of which differ so much from each
other, that they have often been ranked by naturalists as distinct
species. His body is constructed on the same homological plan as
that of other mammals. He passes through the same phases of
embryological development. He retains many rudimentary and useless
structures, which no doubt were once serviceable. Characters
occasionally make their re-appearance in him, which we have reason
to believe were possessed by his early progenitors. If the origin of
man had been wholly different from that of all other animals, these
various appearances would be mere empty deceptions; but such an
admission is incredible. These appearances, on the other hand, are
intelligible, at least to a large extent, if man is the
co-descendant with other mammals of some unknown and lower form.
Some naturalists, from being deeply impressed with the mental and
spiritual powers of man, have divided the whole organic world into
three kingdoms, the Human, the Animal, and the Vegetable, thus
giving to man a separate kingdom.* Spiritual powers cannot be compared
or classed by the naturalist: but he may endeavour to shew, as I
have done, that the mental faculties of man and the lower animals do
not differ in kind, although immensely in degree. A difference in
degree, however great, does not justify us in placing man in a
distinct kingdom, as will perhaps be best illustrated by comparing the
mental powers of two insects, namely, a coccus or scale-insect and
an ant, which undoubtedly belong to the same class. The difference
is here greater than, though of a somewhat different kind from, that
between man and the highest mammal. The female coccus, whilst young,
attaches itself by its proboscis to a plant; sucks the sap, but
never moves again; is fertilised and lays eggs; and this is its
whole history. On the other hand, to describe the habits and mental
powers of worker-ants, would require, as Pierre Huber has shewn, a
large volume; I may, however, briefly specify a few points. Ants
certainly communicate information to each other, and several unite for
the same work, or for games of play. They recognise their
fellow-ants after months of absence, and feel sympathy for each other.
They build great edifices, keep them clean, close the doors in the
evening, and post sentries. They make roads as well as tunnels under
rivers, and temporary bridges over them, by clinging together. They
collect food for the community, and when an object, too large for
entrance, is brought to the nest, they enlarge the door, and
afterwards build it up again. They store up seeds, of which they
prevent the germination, and which, if damp, are brought up to the
surface to dry. They keep aphides and other insects as milch-cows.
They go out to battle in regular bands, and freely sacrifice their
lives for the common weal. They emigrate according to a preconcerted
plan. They capture slaves. They move the eggs of their aphides, as
well as their own eggs and cocoons, into warm parts of the nest, in
order that they may be quickly hatched; and endless similar facts
could be given.*(2) On the whole, the difference in mental power
between an ant and a coccus is immense; yet no one has ever dreamed of
placing these insects in distinct classes, much less in distinct
kingdoms. No doubt the difference is bridged over by other insects;
and this is not the case with man and the higher apes. But we have
every reason to believe that the breaks in the series are simply the
results of many forms having become extinct.
* Isidore Geoffroy St-Hilaire gives a detailed account of the
position assigned to man by various naturalists in their
classifications: Hist. Nat. Gen. tom. ii., 1859, pp. 170-189.
*(2) Some of the most interesting facts ever published on the habits
of ants are given by Mr. Belt, in his The Naturalist in Nicaragua,
1874. See also Mr. Moggridge's admirable work, Harvesting Ants, &c.,
1873, also "L'Instinct chez les insectes," by M. George Pouchet, Revue
des Deux Mondes, Feb., 1870, p. 682.
Professor Owen, relying chiefly on the structure of the brain, has
divided the mammalian series into four sub-classes. One of these he
devotes to man; in another he places both the marsupials and the
Monotremata; so that he makes man as distinct from all other mammals
as are these two latter groups conjoined. This view has not been
accepted, as far as I am aware, by any naturalist capable of forming
an independent judgment, and therefore need not here be further
considered.
We can understand why a classification founded on any single
character or organ- even an organ so wonderfully complex and important
as the brain- or on the high development of the mental faculties, is
almost sure to prove unsatisfactory. This principle has indeed been
tried with hymenopterous insects; but when thus classed by their
habits or instincts, the arrangement proved thoroughly artificial.*
Classifications may, of course, be based on any character whatever, as
on size, colour, or the element inhabited; but naturalists have long
felt a profound conviction that there is a natural system. This
system, it is now generally admitted, must be, as far as possible,
genealogical in arrangement,- that is, the co-descendants of the
same form must be kept together in one group, apart from the
co-descendants of any other form; but if the parent-forms are related,
so will be their descendants, and the two groups together will form
a larger group. The amount of difference between the several groups-
that is the amount of modification which each has undergone- is
expressed by such terms as genera, families, orders, and classes. As
we have no record of the lines of descent, the pedigree can be
discovered only by observing the degrees of resemblance between the
beings which are to be classed. For this object numerous points of
resemblance are of much more importance than the amount of
similarity or dissimilarity in a few points. If two languages were
found to resemble each other in a multitude of words and points of
construction, they would be universally recognised as having sprung
from a common source, notwithstanding that they differed greatly in
some few words or points of construction. But with organic beings
the points of resemblance must not consist of adaptations to similar
habits of life: two animals may, for instance, have had their whole
frames modified for living in the water, and yet they will not be
brought any nearer to each other in the natural system. Hence we can
see how it is that resemblances in several unimportant structures,
in useless and rudimentary organs, or not now functionally active,
or in an embryological condition, are by far the most serviceable
for classification; for they can hardly be due to adaptations within a
late period; and thus they reveal the old lines of descent or of
true affinity.
* Westwood, Modern Classification of Insects, vol. ii., 1840, p. 87.
We can further see why a great amount of modification in some one
character ought not to lead us to separate widely any two organisms. A
part which already differs much from the same part in other allied
forms has already, according to the theory of evolution, varied
much; consequently it would (as long as the organism remained
exposed to the same exciting conditions) be liable to further
variations of the same kind; and these, if beneficial, would be
preserved, and thus be continually augmented. In many cases the
continued development of a part, for instance, of the beak of a
bird, or of the teeth of a mammal, would not aid the species in
gaining its food, or for any other object; but with man we can see
no definite limit to the continued development of the brain and mental
faculties, as far as advantage is concerned. Therefore in
determining the position of man in the natural or genealogical system,
the extreme development of his brain ought not to outweigh a multitude
of resemblances in other less important or quite unimportant points.
The greater number of naturalists who have taken into
consideration the whole structure of man, including his mental
faculties, have followed Blumenbach and Cuvier, and have placed man in
a separate Order, under the title of the Bimana, and therefore on an
equality with the orders of the Quadrumana, Carnivora, &c. Recently
many of our best naturalists have recurred to the view first
propounded by Linnaeus, so remarkable for his sagacity, and have
placed man in the same Order with the Quadrumana, under the title of
the primates. The justice of this conclusion will be admitted: for
in the first place, we must bear in mind the comparative
insignificance for classification of the great development of the
brain in man, and that the strongly-marked differences between the
skulls of man and the Quadrumana (lately insisted upon by Bischoff,
Aeby, and others) apparently follow from their differently developed
brains. In the second place, we must remember that nearly all the
other and more important differences between man and the Quadrumana
are manifestly adaptive in their nature, and relate chiefly to the
erect position of man; such as the structure of his hand, foot, and
pelvis, the curvature of his spine, and the position of his head.
The family of seals offers a good illustration of the small importance
of adaptive characters for classification. These animals differ from
all other Carnivora in the form of their bodies and in the structure
of their limbs, far more than does man from the higher apes; yet in
most systems, from that of Cuvier to the most recent one by Mr.
Flower,* seals are ranked as a mere family in the Order of the
Carnivora. If man had not been his own classifier, he would never have
thought of founding a separate order for his own reception.
* Proceedings Zoological Society, 1863, p. 4.
It would be beyond my limits, and quite beyond my knowledge, even to
name the innumerable points of structure in which man agrees with
the other primates. Our great anatomist and philosopher, Prof. Huxley,
has fully discussed this subject,* and concludes that man in all parts
of his organization differs less from the higher apes, than these do
from the lower members of the same group. Consequently there "is no
justification for placing man in a distinct order."
* Evidence as to Man's Place in Nature, 1863, p. 70, et passim
In an early part of this work I brought forward various facts,
shewing how closely man agrees in constitution with the higher
mammals; and this agreement must depend on our close similarity in
minute structure and chemical composition. I gave, as instances, our
liability to the same diseases, and to the attacks of allied
parasites; our tastes in common for the same stimulants, and the
similar effects produced by them, as well as by various drugs, and
other such facts.
As small unimportant points of resemblance between man and the
Quadrumana are not commonly noticed in systematic works, and as,
when numerous, they clearly reveal our relationship, I will specify
a few such points. The relative position of our features is manifestly
the same; and the various emotions are displayed by nearly similar,
movements of the muscles and skin, chiefly above the eyebrows and
round the mouth. Some few expressions are, indeed, almost the same, as
in the weeping of certain kinds of monkeys and in the laughing noise
made by others, during which the corners of the mouth are drawn
backwards, and the lower eyelids wrinkled. The external ears are
curiously alike. In man the nose is much more prominent than in most
monkeys; but we may trace the commencement of an aquiline curvature in
the nose of the Hoolock gibbon; and this in the Semnopithecus nasica
is carried to a ridiculous extreme.
The faces of many monkeys are ornamented with beards, whiskers, or
moustaches. The hair on the head grows to a great length in some
species of Semnopithecus;* and in the bonnet monkey (Macacus radiatus)
it radiates from a point on the crown, with a parting down the middle.
It is commonly said that the forehead gives to man his noble and
intellectual appearance; but the thick hair on the head of the
bonnet monkey terminates downwards abruptly, and is succeeded by
hair so short and fine that at a little distance the forehead, with
the exception of the eyebrows, appears quite naked. It has been
erroneously asserted that eyebrows are not present in any monkey. In
the species just named the degree of nakedness of the forehead differs
in different individuals; and Eschricht states*(2) that in our
children the limit between the hairy scalp and the naked forehead is
sometimes not well defined; so that here we seem to have a trifling
case of reversion to a progenitor, in whom the forehead had not as yet
become quite naked.
* Isidore Geoffroy St-Hilaire, Hist. Nat. Gen., tom. ii., 1859, p.
217.
*(2) "Uber die Richtung der Haare, &c.," Muller's Archiv fur Anat.
und Phys., 1837, s. 51.
It is well known that the hair on our arms tends to converge from
above and below to a point at the elbow. This curious arrangement,
so unlike that in most of the lower mammals, is common to the gorilla,
chimpanzee, orang, some species of Hylobates, and even to some few
American monkeys. But in Hylobates agilis the hair on the forearm is
directed downwards or towards the wrist in the ordinary manner; and in
H. lar it is nearly erect, with only a very slight forward
inclination; so that in this latter species it is in a transitional
state. It can hardly be doubted that with most mammals the thickness
of the hair on the back and its direction, is adapted to throw off the
rain; even the transverse hairs on the fore-legs of a dog may serve
for this end when he is coiled up asleep. Mr. Wallace, who has
carefully studied the habits of the orang, remarks that the
convergence of the hair towards the elbow on the arms of the orang may
be explained as serving to throw off the rain, for this animal
during rainy weather sits with its arms bent, and with the hands
clasped round a branch or over its head. According to Livingstone, the
gorilla also "sits in pelting rain with his hands over his head."*
If the above explanation is correct, as seems probable, the
direction of the hair on our own arms offers a curious record of our
former state; for no one supposes that it is now of any use in
throwing off the rain; nor, in our present erect condition, is it
properly directed for this purpose.
* Quoted by Reade, African Sketch Book, vol i., 1873, p. 152.
It would, however, be rash to trust too much to the principle of
adaptation in regard to the direction of the hair in man or his
early progenitors; for it is impossible to study the figures given
by Eschricht of the arrangement of the hair on the human foetus
(this being the same as in the adult) and not agree with this
excellent observer that other and more complex causes have intervened.
The points of convergence seem to stand in some relation to those
points in the embryo which are last closed in during development.
There appears, also, to exist some relation between the arrangement of
the hair on the limbs, and the course of the medullary arteries.*
* On the hair in Hylobates, see Natural History of Mammals, by C. L.
Martin, 1841, p. 415. Also, Isidore Geoffroy on the American monkeys
and other kinds, Hist. Nat. Gen., vol. ii., 1859, pp. 216, 243.
Eschricht, ibid., ss. 46, 55, 61. Owen, Anatomy of Vertebrates, vol.
iii., p. 619. Wallace, Contributions to the Theory of Natural
Selection, 1870, p. 344.
It must not be supposed that the resemblances between man and
certain apes in the above and in many other points- such as in
having a naked forehead, long tresses on the head, &c.,- are all
necessarily the result of unbroken inheritance from a common
progenitor, or of subsequent reversion. Many of these resemblances are
more probably due to analogous variation, which follows, as I have
elsewhere attempted to shew,* from co-descended organisms having a
similar constitution, and having been acted on by like causes inducing
similar modifications. With respect to the similar direction of the
hair on the fore-arms of man and certain monkeys, as this character is
common to almost all the anthropomorphous apes, it may probably be
attributed to inheritance; but this is not certain, as some very
distinct American monkeys are thus characterised.
* Origin of Species. The Variation of Animals and Plants under
Domestication, vol. ii., 1868, p. 348.
Although, as we have now seen, man has no just right to form a
separate Order for his own reception, he may perhaps claim a
distinct sub-order or family. Prof. Huxley, in his last work,* divides
the primates into three suborders; namely, the Anthropidae with man
alone, the Simiadae including monkeys of all kinds, and the
Lemuridae with the diversified genera of lemurs. As far as differences
in certain important points of structure are concerned, man may no
doubt rightly claim the rank of a sub-order; and this rank is too low,
if we look chiefly to his mental faculties. Nevertheless, from a
genealogical point of view it appears that this rank is too high,
and that man ought to form merely a family, or possibly even only a
sub-family. If we imagine three lines of descent proceeding from a
common stock, it is quite conceivable that two of them might after the
lapse of ages be so slightly changed as still to remain as species
of the same genus, whilst the third line might become so greatly
modified as to deserve to rank as a distinct sub-family, or even
Order. But in this case it is almost certain that the third line would
still retain through inheritance numerous small points of
resemblance with the other two. Here, then, would occur the
difficulty, at present insoluble, how much weight we ought to assign
in our classifications to strongly-marked differences in some few
points,- that is, to the amount of modification undergone; and how
much to close resemblance in numerous unimportant points, as
indicating the lines of descent or genealogy. To attach much weight to
the few but strong differences is the most obvious and perhaps the
safest course, though it appears more correct to pay great attention
to the many small resemblances, as giving a truly natural
classification.
* An Introduction to the Classification of Animals, 1869, p. 99.
In forming a judgment on this head with reference to man, we must
glance at the classification of the Simiadae. This family is divided
by almost all naturalists into the catarhine group, or Old World
monkeys, all of which are characterised (as their name expresses) by
the peculiar structure of their nostrils, and by having four premolars
in each jaw; and into the platyrhine group or New World monkeys
(including two very distinct sub-groups), all of which are
characterised by differently constructed nostrils, and by having six
premolars in each jaw. Some other small differences might be
mentioned. Now man unquestionably belongs in his dentition, in the
structure of his nostrils, and some other respects, to the catarhine
or Old World division; nor does he resemble the platyrhines more
closely than the catarhines in any characters, excepting in a few of
not much importance and apparently of an adaptive nature. It is
therefore against all probability that some New World species should
have formerly varied and produced a man-like creature, with all the
distinctive characters proper to the Old World division; losing at the
same time all its own distinctive characters. There can, consequently,
hardly be a doubt that man is an off-shoot from the Old World simian
stem; and that under a genealogical point of view he must be classed
with the catarhine division.*
* This is nearly the same classification as that provisionally
adopted by Mr. St. G. Mivart, Transactions, Philosophical Society,
1867, p. 300, who, after separating the Lemuridae, divides the
remainder of the Primates into the Hominidae, the Simiadae which
answer to the catarhines, the Cebidae, and the Hapalidae,- these two
latter groups answering to the platyrhines. Mr. Mivart still abides by
the same view; see Nature, 1871, p. 481.
The anthropomorphous apes, namely the gorilla, chimpanzee, orang,
and Hylobates, are by most naturalists separated from the other Old
World monkeys, as a distinct sub-group. I am aware that Gratiolet,
relying on the structure of the brain, does not admit the existence of
this sub-group, and no doubt it is a broken one. Thus the orang, as
Mr. St. G. Mivart remarks, "is one of the most peculiar and aberrant
forms to be found in the Order."* The remaining non-anthropomorphous
Old World monkeys, are again divided by some naturalists into two or
three smaller subgroups; the genus Semnopithecus, with its peculiar
sacculated stomach, being the type of one sub-group. But it appears
from M. Gaudry's wonderful discoveries in Attica, that during the
Miocene period a form existed there, which connected Semnopithecus and
Macacus; and this probably illustrates the manner in which the other
and higher groups were once blended together.
* Transactions, Zoolog. Soc., vol. vi., 1867, p. 214.
If the anthropomorphous apes be admitted to form a natural
sub-group, then as man agrees with them, not only in all those
characters which he possesses in common with the whole catarhine
group, but in other peculiar characters, such as the absence of a tail
and of callosities, and in general appearance, we may infer that
some ancient member of the anthropomorphous sub-group gave birth to
man. It is not probable that, through the law of analogous
variation, a member of one of the other lower sub-groups should have
given rise to a man-like creature, resembling the higher
anthropomorphous apes in so many respects. No doubt man, in comparison
with most of his allies, has undergone an extraordinary amount of
modification, chiefly in consequence of the great development of his
brain and his erect position; nevertheless, we should bear in mind
that he "is but one of several exceptional forms of primates."*
* Mr. St. G. Mivart, Transactions of the Philosophical Society,
1867, p. 410.
Every naturalist, who believes in the principle of evolution, will
grant that the two main divisions of the Simiadae, namely the
catarhine and platyrhine monkeys, with their sub-groups, have all
proceeded from some one extremely ancient progenitor. The early
descendants of this progenitor, before they had diverged to any
considerable extent from each other, would still have formed a
single natural group; but some of the species or incipient genera
would have already begun to indicate by their diverging characters the
future distinctive marks of the catarhine and platyrhine divisions.
Hence the members of this supposed ancient group would not have been
so uniform in their dentition, or in the structure of their
nostrils, as are the existing catarhine monkeys in one way and the
platyrhines in another way, but would have resembled in this respect
the allied Lemuridae, which differ greatly from each other in the form
of their muzzles,* and to an extraordinary degree in their dentition.
* Messrs. Murie and Mivart on the Lemuroidea, Transactions,
Zoological Society, vol. vii, 1869, p. 5.
The catarhine and platyrhine monkeys agree in a multitude of
characters, as is shewn by their unquestionably belonging to one and
the same Order. The many characters which they possess in common can
hardly have been independently acquired by so many distinct species;
so that these characters must have been inherited. But a naturalist
would undoubtedly have ranked as an ape or a monkey, an ancient form
which possessed many characters common to the catarhine and platyrhine
monkeys, other characters in an intermediate condition, and some
few, perhaps, distinct from those now found in either group. And as
man from a genealogical point of view belongs to the catarhine or
Old World stock, we must conclude, however much the conclusion may
revolt our pride, that our early progenitors would have been
properly thus designated.* But we must not fall into the error of
supposing that the early progenitors of the whole simian stock,
including man, was identical with, or even closely resembled, any
existing ape or monkey.
* Haeckel has come to this same conclusion. See "Uber die Entstehung
des Menschengeschlechts," in Virchow's Sammlung. gemein. wissen.
Vortrage, 1868, s. 61. Also his Naturliche Schopfungsgeschicte,
1868, in which he gives in detail his views on the genealogy of man.
On the Birthplace and Antiquity of Man.- We are naturally led to
enquire, where was the birthplace of man at that stage of descent when
our progenitors diverged from the catarhine stock? The fact that
they belonged to the stock clearly shews that they inhabited the Old
World; but not Australia nor any oceanic island, as we may infer
from the laws of geographical distribution. In each great region of
the world the living mammals are closely related to the extinct
species of the same region. It is therefore probable that Africa was
formerly inhabited by extinct apes closely allied to the gorilla and
chimpanzee; and as these two species are now man's nearest allies,
it is somewhat more probable that our early progenitors lived on the
African continent than elsewhere. But it is useless to speculate on
this subject; for two or three anthropomorphous apes, one the
Dryopithecus* of Lartet, nearly as large as a man, and closely
allied to Hylobates, existed in Europe during the Miocene age; and
since so remote a period the earth has certainly undergone many
great revolutions, and there has been ample time for migration on
the largest scale.
* Dr. C Forsyth Major, "Sur les Singes fossiles trouves en
Italie," Soc. Ital. des Sc. Nat., tom., xv., 1872.
At the period and place, whenever and wherever it was, when man
first lost his hairy covering, he probably inhabited a hot country;
a circumstance favourable for the frugi-ferous diet on which,
judging from analogy, he subsisted. We are far from knowing how long
ago it was when man first diverged from the catarhine stock; but it
may have occurred at an epoch as remote as the Eocene period; for that
the higher apes had diverged from the lower apes as early as the Upper
Miocene period is shewn by the existence of the Dryopithecus. We are
also quite ignorant at how rapid a rate organisms, whether high or low
in the scale, may be modified under favourable circumstances; we know,
however, that some have retained the same form during an enormous
lapse of time. From what we see going on under domestication, we learn
that some of the co-descendants of the same species may be not at all,
some a little, and some greatly changed, all within the same period.
Thus it may have been with man, who has undergone a great amount of
modification in certain characters in comparison with the higher apes.
The great break in the organic chain between man and his nearest
allies, which cannot be bridged over by any extinct or living species,
has often been advanced as a grave objection to the belief that man is
descended from some lower form; but this objection will not appear
of much weight to those who, from general reasons, believe in the
general principle of evolution. Breaks often occur in all parts of the
series, some being wide, sharp and defined, others less so in
various degrees; as between the orang and its nearest allies-
between the Tarsius and the other Lemuridae- between the elephant, and
in a more striking manner between the Ornithorhynchus or Echidna,
and all other mammals. But these breaks depend merely on the number of
related forms which have become extinct. At some future period, not
very distant as measured by centuries, the civilised races of man will
almost certainly exterminate, and replace, the savage races throughout
the world. At the same time the anthropomorphous apes, as Professor
Schaaffhausen has remarked,* will no doubt be exterminated. The
break between man and his nearest allies will then be wider, for it
will intervene between man in a more civilised state, as we may
hope, even than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as a baboon,
instead of as now between the negro or Australian and the gorilla.
* Anthropological Review, April, 1867, p. 236
With respect to the absence of fossil remains, serving to connect
man with his ape-like progenitors, no one will lay much stress on this
fact who reads Sir C. Lyell's discussion,* where he shews that in
all the vertebrate classes the discovery of fossil remains has been
a very slow and fortuitous process. Nor should it be forgotten that
those regions which are the most likely to afford remains connecting
man with some extinct ape-like creature, have not as yet been searched
by geologists.
* Elements of Geology, 1865, pp. 583-585. Antiquity of Man, 1863, p.
145.
Lower Stages in the Genealogy of Man.- We have seen that man appears
to have diverged from the catarhine or Old World division of the
Simiadae, after these had diverged from the New World division. We
will now endeavour to follow the remote traces of his genealogy,
trusting principally to the mutual affinities between the various
classes and orders, with some slight reference to the periods, as
far as ascertained, of their successive appearance on the earth. The
Lemuridae stand below and near to the Simiadae, and constitute a
very distinct family of the primates, or, according to Haeckel and
others, a distinct Order. This group is diversified and broken to an
extraordinary degree, and includes many aberrant forms. It has,
therefore, probably suffered much extinction. Most of the remnants
survive on islands, such as Madagascar and the Malayan archipelago,
where they have not been exposed to so severe a competition as they
would have been on well-stocked continents. This group likewise
presents many gradations, leading, as Huxley remarks,* "insensibly
from the crown and summit of the animal creation down to creatures
from which there is but a step, as it seems, to the lowest,
smallest, and least intelligent of the placental mammalia." From these
various considerations it is probable that the Simiadae were
originally developed from the progenitors of the existing Lemuridae;
and these in their turn from forms standing very low in the
mammalian series.
* Man's Place in Nature, p. 105.
The marsupials stand in many important characters below the
placental mammals. They appeared at an earlier geological period,
and their range was formerly much more extensive than at present.
Hence the Placentata are generally supposed to have been derived
from the Implacentata or marsupials; not, however, from forms
closely resembling the existing marsupials, but from their early
progenitors. The Monotremata are plainly allied to the marsupials,
forming a third and still lower division in the great mammalian
series. They are represented at the present day solely by the
Ornithorhynchus and Echidna; and these two forms may be safely
considered as relics of a much larger group, representatives of
which have been preserved in Australia through some favourable
concurrence of circumstances. The Monotremata are eminently
interesting, as leading in several important points of structure
towards the class of reptiles.
In attempting to trace the genealogy of the Mammalia, and
therefore of man, lower down in the series, we become involved in
greater and greater obscurity; but as a most capable judge, Mr.
Parker, has remarked, we have good reason to believe, that no true
bird or reptile intervenes in the direct line of descent. He who
wishes to see what ingenuity and knowledge can effect, may consult
Prof. Haeckel's works.* I will content myself with a few general
remarks. Every evolutionist will admit that the five great
vertebrate classes, namely, mammals, birds, reptiles, amphibians,
and fishes, are descended from some one prototype; for they have
much in common, especially during their embryonic state. As the
class of fishes is the most lowly organised, and appeared before the
others, we may conclude that all the members of the vertebrate kingdom
are derived from some fishlike animal. The belief that animals so
distinct as a monkey, an elephant, a humming-bird, a snake, a frog,
and a fish, &c., could all have sprung from the same parents, will
appear monstrous to those who have not attended to the recent progress
of natural history. For this belief implies the former existence of
links binding closely together all these forms, now so utterly unlike.
* Elaborate tables are given in his Generelle Morphologie (B. ii.,
s. cliii. and s. 425); and with more especial reference to man in
his Naturliche Schopfungsgeschichte, 1868. Prof. Huxley, in
reviewing this latter work (The Academy, 1869, p. 42), says that he
considers the phylum or lines of descent of the Vertebrata to be
admirably discussed by Haeckel, although he differs on some points. He
expresses, also, his high estimate of the general tenor and spirit
of the whole work.
Nevertheless, it is certain that groups of animals have existed,
or do now exist, which serve to connect several of the great
vertebrate classes more or less closely. We have seen that the
Ornithorhynchus graduates towards reptiles; and Prof. Huxley has
discovered, and is confirmed by Mr. Cope and others, that the
dinosaurians are in many important characters intermediate between
certain reptiles and certain birds- the birds referred to being the
ostrich-tribe (itself a widely-diffused remnant of a larger group) and
the Archeopteryx, that strange secondary bird, with a long lizard-like
tail. Again, according to Prof. Owen,* the ichthyosaurians- great
sea-lizards furnished with paddles- present many affinities with
fishes, or rather, according to Huxley, with amphibians; a class
which, including in its highest division frogs and toads, is plainly
allied to the ganoid fishes. These latter fishes swarmed during the
earlier geological periods, and were constructed on what is called a
generalised type, that is, they presented diversified affinities
with other groups of organisms. The Lepidosiren is also so closely
allied to amphibians and fishes, that naturalists long disputed in
which of these two classes to rank it; it, and also some few ganoid
fishes, have been preserved from utter extinction by inhabiting
rivers, which are harbours of refuge, and are related to the great
waters of the ocean in the same way that islands are to continents.
* Palaeontology 1860, p. 199.
Lastly, one single member of the immense and diversified class of
fishes, namely, the lancelet or amphioxus, is so different from all
other fishes, that Haeckel maintains that it ought to form a
distinct class in the vertebrate kingdom. This fish is remarkable
for its negative characters; it can hardly be said to possess a brain,
vertebral column, or heart, &c.; so that it was classed by the older
naturalists amongst the worms. Many years ago Prof. Good sir perceived
that the lancelet presented some affinities with the ascidians,
which are invertebrate, hermaphrodite, marine creatures permanently
attached to a support. They hardly appear like animals, and consist of
a simple, tough, leathery sack, with two small projecting orifices.
They belong to the Mulluscoida of Huxley- a lower division of the
great kingdom of the Mollusca; but they have recently been placed by
some naturalists amongst the Vermes or worms. Their larvae somewhat
resemble tadpoles in shape,* and have the power of swimming freely
about. Mr. Kovalevsky*(2) has lately observed that the larvae of
ascidians are related to the Vertebrata, in their manner of
development, in the relative position of the nervous system, and in
possessing a structure closely like the chorda dorsalis of
vertebrate animals; and in this he has been since confirmed by Prof.
Kupffer. M. Kovalevsky writes to me from Naples, that he has now
carried these observations yet further, and should his results be well
established, the whole will form a discovery of the very greatest
value. Thus, if we may rely on embryology, ever safest guide in
classification, it seems that we have at last gained a clue to the
source whence the Vertebrata were derived.*(3) We should then be
justified in believing that at an extremely remote period a group of
animals existed, resembling in many respects the larvae of our present
ascidians, which diverged into two great branches- the one
retrograding in development and producing the present class of
ascidians, the other rising to the crown and summit of the animal
kingdom by giving birth to the Vertebrata.
* At the Falkland Islands I had the satisfaction of seeing, in
April, 1833, and therefore some years before any other naturalist, the
locomotive larvae of a compound ascidian, closely allied to
Synoicum, but apparently generically distinct from it. The tail was
about five times as long as the oblong head, and terminated in a
very fine filament. It was, as sketched by me under a simple
microscope, plainly divided by transverse opaque partitions, which I
presume represent the great cells figured by Kovalevsky. At an early
stage of development the tail was closely coiled round the head of the
larva.
*(2) Memoires de l'Acad. des Sciences de St. Petersbourg, tom. x.,
No. 15, 1866.
*(3) But I am bound to add that some competent judges dispute this
conclusion; for instance, M. Giard, in a series of papers in the
Archives de Zoologie Experimentale, for 1872. Nevertheless, this
naturalist remarks, p. 281, "L'organisation de la larve ascidienne
en dehors de toute hypothese et de toute theorie, nous montre
comment la nature peut produire la disposition fondamentale du type
vertebre (l'existence d'une corde dorsale) chez un invertebre par la
seule condition vitale de l'adaptation, et cette simple possibilite du
passage supprime l'abime entre les deux sous-regnes, encore bien qu'en
ignore par ou le passage sest fait en realite."
We have thus far endeavoured rudely to trace the genealogy of the
Vertebrata by the aid of their mutual affinities. We will now look
to man as he exists; and we shall, I think, be able partially to
restore the structure of our early progenitors, during successive
periods, but not in due order of time. This, can be effected by
means of the rudiments which man still retains, by the characters
which occasionally make their appearance in him through reversion, and
by the aid of the principles of morphology and embryology. The various
facts, to which I shall here allude, have been given in the previous
chapters.
The early progenitors of man must have been once covered with
hair, both sexes having beards; their ears were probably pointed,
and capable of movement; and their bodies were provided with a tail,
having the proper muscles. Their limbs and bodies were also acted on
by many muscles which now only occasionally reappear, but are normally
present in the Quadrumana. At this or some earlier period, the great
artery and nerve of the humerus ran through a supra-condyloid foramen.
The intestine gave forth a much larger diverticulum or caecum than
that now existing. The foot was then prehensile, judging from the
condition of the great toe in the foetus; and our progenitors, no
doubt, were arboreal in their habits, and frequented some warm,
forest-clad land. The males had great canine teeth, which served
them as formidable weapons. At a much earlier period the uterus was
double; the excreta were voided through a cloaca; and the eye was
protected by a third eyelid or nictitating membrane. At a still
earlier period the progenitors of man must have been aquatic in
their habits; for morphology plainly tells us that our lungs consist
of a modified swimbladder, which once served as a float. The clefts on
the neck in the embryo of man show where the branchiae once existed.
In the lunar or weekly recurrent periods of some of our functions we
apparently still retain traces of our primordial birthplace, a shore
washed by the tides. At about this same early period the true
kidneys were replaced by the corpora wolffiana. The heart existed as a
simple pulsating vessel; and the chorda dorsalis took the place of a
vertebral column. These early ancestors of man, thus seen in the dim
recesses of time, must have been as simply, or even still more
simply organised than the lancelet or amphioxus.
There is one other point deserving a fuller notice. It has long been
known that in the vertebrate kingdom one sex bears rudiments of
various accessory parts, appertaining to the reproductive system,
which properly belong to the opposite sex; and it has now been
ascertained that at a very early embryonic period both sexes possess
true male and female glands. Hence some remote progenitor of the whole
vertebrate kingdom appears to have been hermaphrodite or androgynous.*
But here we encounter a singular difficulty. In the mammalian class
the males possess rudiments of a uterus with the adjacent passage,
in their vesiculae prostaticae; they bear also rudiments of mammae,
and some male marsupials have traces of a marsupial sack.*(2) Other
analogous facts could be added. Are we, then, to suppose that some
extremely ancient mammal continued androgynous, after it had
acquired the chief distinctions of its class, and therefore after it
had diverged from the lower classes of the vertebrate kingdom? This
seems very improbable, for we have to look to fishes, the lowest of
all the classes, to find any still existent androgynous forms.*(3)
That various accessory parts, proper to each sex, are found in a
rudimentary condition in the opposite sex, may be explained by such
organs having been gradually acquired by the one sex, and then
transmitted in a more or less imperfect state to the other. When we
treat of sexual selection, we shall meet with innumerable instances of
this form of transmission,- as in the case of the spurs, plumes, and
brilliant colours, acquired for battle or ornament by male birds,
and inherited by the females in an imperfect or rudimentary condition.
* This is the conclusion of Prof. Gegenbaur, one of the highest
authorities in comparative anatomy: see Grundzuge der vergleich.
Anat., 1870, s. 876. The result has been arrived at chiefly from the
study of the Amphibia; but it appears from the researches of
Waldeyer (as quoted in Journal of Anat. and Phys., 1869, p. 161), that
the sexual organs of even "the higher vertebrata are, in their early
condition, hermaphrodite." Similar views have long been held by some
authors, though until recently without a firm basis.
*(2) The male Thylacinus offers the best instance. Owen, Anatomy
of Vertebrates, vol. iii., p. 771.
*(3) Hermaphroditism has been observed in several species of
Serranus, as well as in some other fishes, where it is either normal
and symmetrical, or abnormal and unilateral. Dr. Zouteveen has given
me references on this subject, more especially to a paper by Prof.
Halbertsma, in the Transact. of the Dutch Acad. of Sciences, vol. xvi.
Dr. Gunther doubts the fact, but it has now been recorded by too
many good observers to be any longer disputed. Dr. M. Lessona writes
to me, that he has verified the observations made by Cavolini on
Serranus. Prof. Ercolani has recently shewn (Acad. delle Scienze,
Bologna, Dec. 28, 1871) that eels are androgynous.
The possession by male mammals of functionally imperfect mammary
organs is, in some respects, especially curious. The Monotremata
have the proper milk-secreting glands with orifices, but no nipples;
and as these animals stand at the very base of the mammalian series,
it is probable that the progenitors of the class also had
milk-secreting glands, but no nipples. This conclusion is supported by
what is known of their manner of development; for Professor Turner
informs me, on the authority of Kolliker and Langer, that in the
embryo the mammary glands can be distinctly traced before the
nipples are in the least visible; and the development of successive
parts in the individual generally represents and accords with the
development of successive beings in the same line of descent. The
marsupials differ from the Monotremata by possessing nipples; so
that probably these organs were first acquired by the marsupials,
after they had diverged from, and risen above, the Monotremata, and
were then transmitted to the placental mammals.* No one will suppose
that the marsupials still remained androgynous, after they had
approximately acquired their present structure. How then are we to
account for male mammals possessing mammae? It is possible that they
were first developed in the females and then transferred to the males,
but from what follows this is hardly probable.
* Prof. Gegenbaur has shewn (Jenaische Zeitschrift, Bd. vii., p.
212) that two distinct types of nipples prevail throughout the several
mammalian orders, but that it is quite intelligible how both could
have been derived from the nipples of the marsupials, and the latter
from those of the Monotremata. See, also, a memoir by Dr. Max Huss, on
the mammary glands, ibid., B. viii., p. 176.
It may be suggested, as another view, that long after the
progenitors of the whole mammalian class had ceased to be androgynous,
both sexes yielded milk, and thus nourished their young; and in the
case of the marsupials, that both sexes carried their young in
marsupial sacks. This will not appear altogether improbable, if we
reflect that the males of existing syngnathous fishes receive the eggs
of the females in their abdominal pouches, hatch them, and afterwards,
as some believe, nourish the young;* - that certain other male
fishes hatch the eggs within their mouths or branchial cavities;- that
certain male toads take the chaplets of eggs from the females, and
wind them round their own thighs, keeping them there until the
tadpoles are born;- that certain male birds undertake the whole duty
of incubation, and that male pigeons, as well as the females, feed
their nestlings with a secretion from their crops. But the above
suggestion first occurred to me from mammary glands of male mammals
being so much more perfectly developed than the rudiments of the other
accessory reproductive parts, which are found in the one sex though
proper to the other. The mammary glands and nipples, as they exist
in male mammals, can indeed hardly be called rudimentary; they are
merely not fully developed, and not functionally active. They are
sympathetically affected under the influence of certain diseases, like
the same organs in the female. They often secrete a few drops of
milk at birth and at puberty: this latter fact occurred in the curious
case before referred to, where a young man possessed two pairs of
mammee. In man and some other male mammals these organs have been
known occasionally to become so well developed during maturity as to
yield a fair supply of milk. Now if we suppose that during a former
prolonged period male mammals aided the females in nursing their
offspring,*(2) and that afterwards from some cause (as from the
production of a smaller number of young) the males ceased to give this
aid, disuse of the organs during maturity would lead to their becoming
inactive; and from two well-known principles of inheritance, this
state of inactivity would probably be transmitted to the males at
the corresponding age of maturity. But at an earlier age these
organs would be left unaffected, so that they would be almost
equally well developed in the young of both sexes.
* Mr. Lockwood believes (as quoted in Quart. Journal of Science,
April, 1868, p. 269), from what he has observed of the development
of Hippocampus, that the walls of the abdominal pouch of the male in
some way afford nourishment. On male fishes hatching the ova in
their mouths, see a very interesting paper by Prof. Wyman, in Proc.
Boston Soc. of Nat. Hist., Sept. 15, 1857; also Prof. Turner, in
Journal of Anatomy and Physiology, Nov. 1, 1866, p. 78. Dr. Gunther
has likewise described similar cases.
*(2) Mlle. C. Royer has suggested a similar view in her Origine de
l'homme, &c., 1870.
Conclusion.- Von Baer has defined advancement or progress in the
organic scale better than any one else, as resting on the amount of
differentiation and specialisation of the several parts of a being,-
when arrived at maturity, as I should be inclined to add. Now as
organisms have become slowly adapted to diversified lines of life by
means of natural selection, their parts will have become more and more
differentiated and specialised for various functions from the
advantage gained by the division of physiological labour. The same
part appears often to have been modified first for one purpose, and
then long afterwards for some other and quite distinct purpose; and
thus all the parts are rendered more and more complex. But each
organism still retains the general type of structure of the progenitor
from which it was aboriginally derived. In accordance with this view
it seems, if we turn to geological evidence, that organisation on
the whole has advanced throughout the world by slow and interrupted
steps. In the great kingdom of the Vertebrata it has culminated in
man. It must not, however, be supposed that groups of organic beings
are always supplanted, and disappear as soon as they have given
birth to other and more perfect groups. The latter, though
victorious over their predecessors, may not have become better adapted
for all places in the economy of nature. Some old forms appear to have
survived from inhabiting protected sites, where they have not been
exposed to very severe competition; and these often aid us in
constructing our genealogies, by giving us a fair idea of former and
lost populations. But we must not fall into the error of looking at
the existing members of any lowly-organised group as perfect
representatives of their ancient predecessors.
The most ancient progenitors in the kingdom of the Vertebrata, at
which we are able to obtain an obscure glance, apparently consisted of
a group of marine animals,* resembling the larvae of existing
ascidians. These animals probably gave rise to a group of fishes, as
lowly organised as the lancelet; and from these the ganoids, and other
fishes like the Lepidosiren, must have been developed. From such
fish a very small advance would carry us on to the amphibians. We have
seen that birds and reptiles were once intimately connected
together; and the Monotremata now connect mammals with reptiles in a
slight degree. But no one can at present say by what line of descent
the three higher and related classes, namely, mammals, birds, and
reptiles, were derived from the two lower vertebrate classes,
namely, amphibians and fishes. In the class of mammals the steps are
not difficult to conceive which led from the ancient Monotremata to
the ancient marsupials; and from these to the early progenitors of the
placental mammals. We may thus ascend to the Lemuridae; and the
interval is not very wide from these to the Simiadae. The Simiadae
then branched off into two great stems, the New World and Old World
monkeys; and from the latter, at a remote period, Man, the wonder
and glory of the Universe, proceeded.
* The inhabitants of the seashore must be greatly affected by the
tides; animals living either about the mean high-water mark, or
about the mean low-water mark, pass through a complete cycle of
tidal changes in a fortnight. Consequently, their food supply will
undergo marked changes week by week. The vital functions of such
animals, living under these conditions for many generations, can
hardly fail to run their course in regular weekly periods. Now it is a
mysterious fact that in the higher and now terrestrial Vertebrata,
as well as in other classes, many normal and abnormal processes one or
more whole weeks as their periods; this would be rendered intelligible
if the Vertebrata are descended from an animal allied to the
existing tidal ascidians. Many instances of such periodic processes
might be given, as the gestation of mammals, the duration of fevers,
&c. The hatching of eggs affords also a good example, for, according
to Mr. Bartlett (Land and Water, Jan. 7, 1871), the eggs of the pigeon
are hatched in two weeks; those of the fowl in three; those of the
duck in four; those of the goose in five; and those of the ostrich
in seven weeks. As far as we can judge, a recurrent period, if
approximately of the right duration for any process or function, would
not, when once gained, be liable to change; consequently it might be
thus transmitted through almost any number of generations. But if
the function changed, the period would have to change, and would be
apt to change almost abruptly by a whole week. This conclusion, if
sound, is highly remarkable; for the period of gestation in each
mammal, and the hatching of each bird's eggs, and many other vital
processes, thus betray to us the primordial birthplace of these
animals.
Thus we have given to man a pedigree of prodigious length, but
not, it may be said, of noble quality. The world, it has often been
remarked, appears as if it had long been preparing for the advent of
man: and this, in one sense is strictly true, for he owes his birth to
a long line of progenitors. If any single link in this chain had never
existed, man would not have been exactly what he now is. Unless we
wilfully close our eyes, we may, with our present knowledge,
approximately recognise our parentage; nor need we feel ashamed of it.
The most humble organism is something much higher than the inorganic
dust under our feet; and no one with an unbiased mind can study any
living creature, however humble, without being struck with
enthusiasm at its marvellous structure and properties.
CHAPTER VII.
ON THE RACES OF MAN.
IT is not my intention here to describe the several so-called
races of men; but I am about to enquire what is the value of the
differences between them under a classificatory point of view, and how
they have originated. In determining whether two or more allied
forms ought to be ranked as species or varieties, naturalists are
practically guided by the following considerations; namely, the amount
of difference between them, and whether such differences relate to few
or many points of structure, and whether they are of physiological
importance; but more especially whether they are constant. Constancy
of character is what is chiefly valued and sought for by
naturalists. Whenever it can be shewn, or rendered probable, that
the forms in question have remained distinct for a long period, this
becomes an argument of much weight in favour of treating them as
species. Even a slight degree of sterility between any two forms
when first crossed, or in their offspring, is generally considered
as a decisive test of their specific distinctness; and their continued
persistence without blending within the same area, is usually accepted
as sufficient evidence, either of some degree of mutual sterility,
or in the case of animals of some mutual repugnance to pairing.
Independently of fusion from intercrossing, the complete absence, in
a well-investigated region, of varieties linking together any two
closely-allied forms, is probably the most important of all the
criterions of their specific distinctness; and this is a somewhat
different consideration from mere constancy of character, for two
forms may be highly variable and yet not yield intermediate varieties.
Geographical distribution is often brought into play unconsciously and
sometimes consciously; so that forms living in two widely separated
areas, in which most of the other inhabitants are specifically
distinct, are themselves usually looked at as distinct; but in truth
this affords no aid in distinguishing geographical races from
so-called good or true species.
Now let us apply these generally-admitted principles to the
races of man, viewing him in the same spirit as a naturalist would any
other animal. In regard to the amount of difference between the races,
we must make some allowance for our nice powers of discrimination
gained by the long habit of observing ourselves. In India, as
Elphinstone remarks, although a newly-arrived European cannot at first
distinguish the various native races, yet they soon appear to him
extremely dissimilar;* and the Hindoo cannot at first perceive any
difference between the several European nations. Even the most
distinct races of man are much more like each other in form than would
at first be supposed; certain negro tribes must be excepted, whilst
others, as Dr. Rohlfs writes to me, and as I have myself seen, have
Caucasian features. This general similarity is well shewn by the
French photographs in the Collection Anthropologique du Museum de
Paris of the men belonging to various races, the greater number of
which might pass for Europeans, as many persons to whom I have shewn
them have remarked. Nevertheless, these men, if seen alive, would
undoubtedly appear very distinct, so that we are clearly much
influenced in our judgment by the mere colour of the skin and hair, by
slight differences in the features, and by expression.
* History of India, 1841, vol. i., p. 323. Father Ripa makes exactly
the same remark with respect to the Chinese.
There is, however, no doubt that the various races, when
carefully compared and measured, differ much from each other,- as in
the texture of the hair, the relative proportions of all parts of
the body,* the capacity of the lungs, the form and capacity of the
skull, and even in the convolutions of the brain.*(2) But it would
be an endless task to specify the numerous points of difference. The
races differ also in constitution, in acclimatisation and in liability
to certain diseases. Their mental characteristies are likewise very
distinct; chiefly as it would appear in their emotional, but partly in
their intellectual faculties. Every one who has had the opportunity of
comparison, must have been struck with the contrast between the
taciturn, even morose, aborigines of S. America and the
lighthearted, talkative negroes. There is a nearly similar contrast
between the Malays and the Papuans,*(3) who live under the same
physical conditions, and are separated from each other only by a
narrow space of sea.
* A vast number of measurements of whites, blacks, and Indians,
are given in the Investigations in the Military and Anthropolog.
Statistics of American Soldiers by B. A. Gould, 1869, pp. 298-358; "On
the capacity of the lungs," p. 471. See also the numerous and valuable
tables, by Dr. Weisbach, from the observations of Dr. Scherzer and Dr.
Schwarz, in the Reise der Novara: Anthropolog. Theil, 1867.
*(2) See, for instance, Mr. Marshall's account of the brain of a
bushwoman, in Philosophical Transactions, 1864, p. 519.
*(3) Wallace The Malay Archipelago, vol. ii., 1869, p. 178.
We will first consider the arguments which may be advanced in favour
of classing the races of man as distinct species, and then the
arguments on the other side. If a naturalist, who had never before
seen a Negro, Hottentot, Australian, or Mongolian, were to compare
them, he would at once perceive that they differed in a multitude of
characters, some of slight and some of considerable importance. On
enquiry he would find that they were adapted to live under widely
different climates, and that they differed somewhat in bodily
constitution and mental disposition. If he were then told that
hundreds of similar specimens could be brought from the same
countries, he would assuredly declare that they were as good species
as many to which he had been in the habit of affixing specific
names. This conclusion would be greatly strengthened as soon as he had
ascertained that these forms had all retained the same character for
many centuries; and that negroes, apparently identical with existing
negroes, had lived at least 4000 years ago.* He would also hear, on
the authority of an excellent observer, Dr. Lund,*(2) that the human
skulls found in the caves of Brazil entombed with many extinct
mammals, belonged to the same type as that now prevailing throughout
the American continent.
* With respect to the figures in the famous Egyptian caves of
Abou-Simbel, M. Pouchet says (The Plurality of the Human Races, Eng.
translat., 1864, p. 50), that he was far from finding recognisable
representations of the dozen or more nations which some authors
believe that they can recognise. Even some of the most strongly-marked
races cannot be identified with that degree of unanimity which might
have been expected from what has been written on the subject. Thus
Messrs. Nott and Gliddon (Types of Mankind, p. 148), state that
Rameses II, or the Great, has features superbly European; whereas
Knox, another firm believer in the specific distinctness of the
races of man (Races of Man, 1850, p. 201), speaking of young Memnon
(the same as Rameses II, as I am informed by Mr. Birch), insists in
the strongest manner that he is identical in character with the Jews
of Antwerp. Again, when I looked at the statue of Amunoph III, I
agreed with two officers of the establishment, both competent
judges, that he had a strongly-marked negro type of features; but
Messrs. Nott and Gliddon (ibid., p. 146, fig. 53), describe him as a
hybrid, but not of "negro intermixture."
*(2) As quoted by Nott and Gliddon, Types of Mankind, 1854, p.
439. They give also corroborative evidence; but C. Vogt thinks that
the subject requires further investigation.
Our naturalist would then perhaps turn to geographical distribution,
and he would probably declare that those forms must be distinct
species, which differ not only in appearance, but are fitted for
hot, as well as damp or dry countries, and for the arctic regions.
He might appeal to the fact that no species in the group next to
man- namely, the Quadrumana, can resist a low temperature, or any
considerable change of climate; and that the species which come
nearest to man have never been reared to maturity, even under the
temperate climate of Europe. He would be deeply impressed with the
fact, first noticed by Agassiz,* that the different races of man are
distributed over the world in the same zoological provinces, as
those inhabited by undoubtedly distinct species and genera of mammals.
This is manifestly the case with the Australian, Mongolian, and
Negro races of man; in a less well-marked manner with the
Hottentots; but plainly with the Papuans and Malays, who are
separated, as Mr. Wallace has shewn, by nearly the same line which
divides the great Malayan and Australian zoological provinces. The
aborigines of America range throughout the continent; and this at
first appears opposed to the above rule, for most of the productions
of the Southern and Northern halves differ widely: yet some few living
forms, as the opossum, range from the one into the other, as did
formerly some of the gigantic Edentata. The Esquimaux, like other
arctic animals, extend round the whole polar regions. It should be
observed that the amount of difference between the mammals of the
several zoological provinces does not correspond with the degree of
separation between the latter; so that it can hardly be considered
as an anomaly that the Negro differs more, and the American much
less from the other races of man, than do the mammals of the African
and American continents from the mammals of the other provinces.
Man, it may be added, does not appear to have aboriginally inhabited
any oceanic island; and in this respect, he resembles the other
members of his class.
* "Diversity of Origin of the Human Races," in the Christian
Examiner, July, 1850.
In determining whether the supposed varieties of the same kind of
domestic animal should be ranked as such, or as specifically distinct,
that is, whether any of them are descended from distinct wild species,
every naturalist would lay much stress on the fact of their external
parasites being specifically distinct. All the more stress would be
laid on this fact, as it would be an exceptional one; for I am
informed by Mr. Denny that the most different kinds of dogs, fowls,
and pigeons, in England, are infested by the same species of
Pediculi or lice. Now Mr. A. Murray has carefully examined the
Pediculi. collected in different countries from the different races of
man;* and he finds that they differ, not only in colour, but in the
structure of their claws and limbs. In every case in which many
specimens were obtained the differences were constant. The surgeon
of a whaling ship in the Pacific assured me that when the Pediculi,
with which some Sandwich Islanders on board swarmed, strayed on to the
bodies of the English sailors, they died in the course of three or
four days. These Pediculi were darker coloured, and appeared different
from those proper to the natives of Chiloe in South America, of
which he gave me specimens. These, again, appeared larger and much
softer than European lice. Mr. Murray procured four kinds from Africa,
namely, from the Negroes of the Eastern and Western coasts, from the
Hottentots and Kaffirs; two kinds from the natives of Australia; two
from North and two from South America. In these latter cases it may be
presumed that the Pediculi came from natives inhabiting different
districts. With insects slight structural differences, if constant,
are generally esteemed of specific value: and the fact of the races of
man being infested by parasites, which appear to be specifically
distinct, might fairly be urged as an argument that the races
themselves ought to be classed as distinct species.
* Transactions of the Royal Society of Edinburgh, vol. xxii, 1861,
p. 567.
Our supposed naturalist having proceeded thus far in his
investigation, would next enquire whether the races of men, when
crossed, were in any degree sterile. He might consult the work* of
Professor Broca, a cautious and philosophical observer, and in this he
would find good evidence that some races were quite fertile
together, but evidence of an opposite nature in regard to other races.
Thus it has been asserted that the native women of Australia and
Tasmania rarely produce children to European men; the evidence,
however, on this head has now been shewn to be almost valueless. The
half-castes are killed by the pure blacks: and an account has lately
been published of eleven half-caste youths murdered and burnt at the
same time, whose remains were found by the police.*(2) Again, it has
often been said that when mulattoes intermarry, they produce few
children; on the other hand, Dr. Bachman, of Charleston,*(3)
positively asserts that he has known mulatto families which have
intermarried for several generations, and have continued on an average
as fertile as either pure whites or pure blacks. Enquiries formerly
made by Sir C. Lyell on this subject led him, as he informs me, to the
same conclusion.*(4) In the United States the census for the year 1854
included, according to Dr. Bachman, 405,751 mulattoes; and this
number, considering all the circumstances of the case, seems small;
but it may partly be accounted for by the degraded and anomalous
position of the class, and by the profligacy of the women. A certain
amount of absorption of mulattoes into negroes must always be in
progress; and this would lead to an apparent diminution of the former.
The inferior vitality of mulattoes is spoken of in a trustworthy
work*(5) as a well-known phenomenon; and this, although a different
consideration from their lessened fertility, may perhaps be advanced
as a proof of the specific distinctness of the parent races. No
doubt both animal and vegetable hybrids, when produced from
extremely distinct species, are liable to premature death; but the
parents of mulattoes cannot be put under the category of extremely
distinct species. The common mule, so notorious for long life and
vigour, and yet so sterile, shews how little necessary connection
there is in hybrids between lessened fertility and vitality; other
analogous cases could be cited.
* On the Phenomena of Hybridity in the Genus Homo, Eng. translat.,
1864.
*(2) See the interesting letter by Mr. T. A. Murray, in the
Anthropological Review, April, 1868, p. liii. In this letter Count
Strzelecki's statement that Australian women who have borne children
to a white man, are afterwards sterile with their own race, is
disproved. M. A. de Quatrefages has also collected (Revue des Cours
Scientifiques, March, 1869, p. 239), much evidence that Australians
and Europeans are not sterile when crossed.
*(3) An Examination of Prof. Agassiz's Sketch of the Nat.
Provinces of the Animal World, Charleston, 1855, p. 44.
*(4) Dr. Rohlfs writes to me that he found the mixed races in the
Great Sahara, derived from Arabs, Berbers, and Negroes of three
tribes, extraordinarily fertile. On the other hand, Mr. Winwood
Reade informs me that the Negroes on the Gold Coast, though admiring
white men and mulattoes, have a maxim that mulattoes should not
intermarry, as the children are few and sickly. This belief, as Mr.
Reade remarks, deserves attention, as white men have visited and
resided on the Gold Coast for four hundred years, so that the
natives have had ample time to gain knowledge through experience.
*(5) Military and Anthropological Statistics of American Soldiers,
by B. A. Gould, 1869, p. 319.
Even if it should hereafter be proved that all the races of men were
perfectly fertile together, he who was inclined from other reasons
to rank them as distinct species, might with justice argue that
fertility and sterility are not safe criterions of specific
distinctness. We know that these qualities are easily affected by
changed conditions of life, or by close interbreeding, and that they
are governed by highly complex laws, for instance, that of the unequal
fertility of converse crosses between the same two species. With forms
which must be ranked as undoubted species, a perfect series exists
from those which are absolutely sterile when crossed, to those which
are almost or completely fertile. The degrees of sterility do not
coincide strictly with the degrees of difference between the parents
in external structures or habits of life. Man in many respects may
be compared with those animals which have long been domesticated,
and a large body of evidence can be advanced in favour of the
Pallasian doctrine,* that domestication tends to eliminate the
sterility which is so general a result of the crossing of species in a
state of nature. From these several considerations, it may be justly
urged that the perfect fertility of the intercrossed races of man,
if established, would not absolutely preclude us from ranking them
as distinct species.
* The Variation of Animals and Plants under Domestication, vol. ii
p. 109. I may here remind the reader that the sterility of species
when crossed is not a specially acquired quality, but, like the
incapacity of certain trees to be grafted together, is incidental on
other acquired differences. The nature these differences is unknown,
but they relate more especially to the reproductive system, and much
less so to external structure or to ordinary differences in
constitution. One important element in the sterility of crossed
species apparently lies in one or both having been long habituated
to fixed conditions; for we know that changed conditions have a
special influence on the reproductive system, and we have good
reason to believe (as before remarked) that the fluctuating conditions
of domestication tend to eliminate that sterility which is so
general with species, in a natural state, when crossed. It has
elsewhere been shewn by me (ibid., vol. ii., p. 185, and Origin of
Species, (OOS), that the sterility of crossed species has not been
acquired through natural selection: we can see that when two forms
have already been rendered very sterile, it is scarcely possible
that their sterility should be augmented by the preservation or
survival of the more and more sterile individuals; for, as the
sterility increases. fewer and fewer offspring will be produced from
which to breed, and at last only single individuals will be produced
at the rarest intervals. But there is even a higher grade of sterility
than this. Both Gartner and Kolreuter have proved that in genera of
plants, including many species, a series can be formed from species
which, when crossed, yield fewer and fewer seeds, to species which
never produce a single seed, but yet are affected by the pollen of the
other species, as shewn by the swelling of the germen. It is here
manifestly impossible to select the more sterile individuals, which
have already ceased to yield seeds; so that the acme of sterility,
when the germen alone is affected, cannot have been gained through
selection. This acme, and no doubt the other grades of sterility,
are the incidental results of certain unknown differences in the
constitution of the reproductive system of the species which are
crossed.
Independently of fertility, the characters presented by the
offspring from a cross have been thought to indicate whether or not
the parent-forms ought to be ranked as species or varieties; but after
carefully studying the evidence, I have come to the conclusion that no
general rules of this kind can be trusted. The ordinary result of a
cross is the production of a blended or intermediate form; but in
certain cases some of the offspring take closely after one
parent-form, and some after the other. This is especially apt to occur
when the parents differ in characters which first appeared as sudden
variations or monstrosities.* I refer to this point, because Dr.
Rohlfs informs me that he has frequently seen in Africa the
offspring of negroes crossed with members of other races, either
completely black or completely white, or rarely piebald. On the
other hand, it is notorious that in America mulattoes commonly present
an intermediate appearance.
* The Variation of Animals, &c., vol. ii., p. 92.
We have now seen that a naturalist might feel himself fully
justified in ranking the races of man as distinct species; for he
has found that they are distinguished by many differences in structure
and constitution, some being of importance. These differences have,
also, remained nearly constant for very long periods of time. Our
naturalist will have been in some degree influenced by the enormous
range of man, which is a great anomaly in the class of mammals, if
mankind be viewed as a single species. He will have been struck with
the distribution of the several so-called races, which accords with
that of other undoubtedly distinct species of mammals. Finally, he
might urge that the mutual fertility of all the races has not as yet
been fully proved, and even if proved would not be an absolute proof
of their specific identity.
On the other side of the question, if our supposed naturalist were
to enquire whether the forms of man keep distinct like ordinary
species, when mingled together in large numbers in the same country,
he would immediately discover that this was by no means the case. In
Brazil he would behold an immense mongrel population of Negroes and
Portuguese; in Chiloe, and other parts of South America, he would
behold the whole population consisting of Indians and Spaniards
blended in various degrees.* In many parts of the same continent he
would meet with the most complex crosses between Negroes, Indians, and
Europeans; and judging from the vegetable kingdom, such triple crosses
afford the severest test of the mutual fertility of the parent
forms. In one island of the Pacific he would find a small population
of mingled Polynesian and English blood; and in the Fiji Archipelago a
population of Polynesians and Negritos crossed in all degrees. Many
analogous cases could be added; for instance, in Africa. Hence the
races of man are not sufficiently distinct to inhabit the same country
without fusion; and the absence of fusion affords the usual and best
test of specific distinctness.
* M. de Quatrefages has given (Anthropological Review, Jan., 1869,
p. 22), an interesting account of the success and energy of the
Paulistas in Brazil, who are a much crossed race of Portuguese and
Indians, with a mixture of the blood of other races.
Our naturalist would likewise be much disturbed as soon as he
perceived that the distinctive characters of all the races were highly
variable. This fact strikes every one on first beholding the negro
slaves in Brazil, who have been imported from all parts of Africa. The
same remark holds good with the Polynesians, and with many other
races. It may be doubted whether any character can be named which is
distinctive of a race and is constant. Savages, even within the limits
of the same tribe, are not nearly so uniform in character, as has been
often asserted. Hottentot women offer certain peculiarities, more
strongly marked than those occurring in any other race, but these
are known not to be of constant occurrence. In the several American
tribes, colour and hairiness differ considerably; as does colour to
a certain degree, and the shape of the features greatly, in the
negroes of Africa. The shape of the skull varies much in some
races;* and so it is with every other character. Now all naturalists
have learnt by dearly bought experience, how rash it is to attempt
to define species by the aid of inconstant characters.
* For instance, with the aborigines of America and Australia,
Prof. Huxley says (Transact. Internat. Congress of Prehist. Arch.,
1868, p. 105), that the skulls of many South Germans and Swiss are "as
short and as broad as those of the Tartars," &c.
But the most weighty of all the arguments against treating the races
of man as distinct species, is that they graduate into each other,
independently in many cases, as far as we can judge, of their having
intercrossed. Man has been studied more carefully than any other
animal, and yet there is the greatest possible diversity amongst
capable judges whether he should be classed as a single species or
race, or as two (Virey), as three (Jacquinot), as four (Kant), five
(Blumenbach), six (Buffon), seven (Hunter), eight (Agassiz), eleven
(Pickering), fifteen (Bory de St-Vincent), sixteen (Desmoulins),
twenty-two (Morton), sixty (Crawfurd), or as sixty-three, according to
Burke.* This diversity of judgment does not prove that the races ought
not to be ranked as species, but it shews that they graduate into each
other, and that it is hardly possible to discover clear distinctive
characters between them.
* See a good discussion on this subject in Waitz, Introduction to
Anthropology, Eng. translat., 1863, pp. 198-208, 227. I have taken
some of the above statements from H. Tuttle's Origin and Antiquity
of Physical Man, Boston, 1866, p. 35.
Every naturalist who has had the misfortune to undertake the
description of a group of highly varying organisms, has encountered
cases (I speak after experience) precisely like that of man; and if of
a cautious disposition, he will end by uniting all the forms which
graduate into each other, under a single species; for he will say to
himself that he has no right to give names to objects which he
cannot define. Cases of this kind occur in the Order which include
man, namely in certain genera of monkeys; whilst in other genera, as
in Cercopithecus, most of the species can be determined with
certainty. In the American genus Cebus, the various forms are ranked
by some naturalists as species, by others as mere geographical
races. Now if numerous specimens of Cebus were collected from all
parts of South America, and those forms which at present appear to
be specifically distinct, were found to graduate into each other by
close steps, they would usually be ranked as mere varieties or
races; and this course has been followed by most naturalists with
respect to the races of man. Nevertheless, it must be confessed that
there are forms, at least in the vegetable kingdom,* which we cannot
avoid naming as species, but which are connected together by
numberless gradations, independently of intercrossing.
* Prof. Nageli has carefully described several striking cases in his
Botanische Mittheilungen, B. ii., 1866, ss. 294-369. Prof. Asa Gray
has made analogous remarks on some intermediate forms in the
Compositae of N. America.
Some naturalists have lately employed the term "sub-species" to
designate forms which possess many of the characteristics of true
species, but which hardly deserve so high a rank. Now if we reflect on
the weighty arguments above given, for raising the races of man to the
dignity of species, and the insuperable difficulties on the other side
in defining them, it seems that the term "sub-species" might here be
used with propriety. But from long habit the term "race" will
perhaps always be employed. The choice of terms is only so far
important in that it is desirable to use, as far as possible, the same
terms for the same degrees of difference. Unfortunately this can
rarely be done: for the larger genera generally include closely-allied
forms, which can be distinguished only with much difficulty, whilst
the smaller genera within the same family include forms that are
perfectly distinct; yet all must be ranked equally as species. So
again, species within the same large genus by no means resemble each
other to the same degree: on the contrary, some of them can
generally be arranged in little groups round other species, like
satellites round planets.*
* Origin of Species. (OOS)
The question whether mankind consists of one or several species
has of late years been much discussed by anthropologists, who are
divided into the two schools of monogenists and polygenists. Those who
do not admit the principle of evolution, must look at species as
separate creations, or in some manner as distinct entities; and they
must decide what forms of man they will consider as species by the
analogy of the method commonly pursued in ranking other organic beings
as species. But it is a hopeless endeavour to decide this point, until
some definition of the term "species" is generally accepted; and the
definition must not include an indeterminate element such as an act of
creation. We might as well attempt without any definition to decide
whether a certain number of houses should be called a village, town,
or city. We have a practical illustration of the difficulty in the
never-ending doubts whether many closely-allied mammals, birds,
insects, and plants, which represent each other respectively in
North America and Europe, should be ranked as species or
geographical races; and the like holds true of the productions of many
islands situated at some little distance from the nearest continent.
Those naturalists, on the other hand, who admit the principle of
evolution, and this is now admitted by the majority of rising men,
will feel no doubt that all the races of man are descended from a
single primitive stock; whether or not they may think fit to designate
the races as distinct species, for the sake of expressing their amount
of difference.* With our domestic animals the question whether the
various races have arisen from one or more species is somewhat
different. Although it may be admitted that all the races, as well
as all the natural species within the same genus, have sprung from the
same primitive stock, yet it is a fit subject for discussion,
whether all the domestic races of the dog, for instance, have acquired
their present amount of difference since some one species was first
domesticated by man; or whether they owe some of their characters to
inheritance from distinct species, which had already been
differentiated in a state of nature. With man no such question can
arise, for he cannot be said to have been domesticated at any
particular period.
* See Prof. Huxley to this effect in the Fortnightly Review, 1865,
p. 275.
During an early stage in the divergence of the races of man from a
common stock, the differences between the races and their number
must have been small; consequently as far as their distinguishing
characters are concerned, they then had less claim to rank as distinct
species than the existing so-called races. Nevertheless, so
arbitrary is the term of species, that such early races would
perhaps have been ranked by some naturalists as distinct species, if
their differences, although extremely slight, had been more constant
than they are at present, and had not graduated into each other.
It is however possible, though far from probable, that the early
progenitors of man might formerly have diverged much in character,
until they became more unlike each other than any now existing
races; but that subsequently, as suggested by Vogt,* they converged in
character. When man selects the offspring of two distinct species
for the same object, he sometimes induces a considerable amount of
convergence, as far as general appearance is concerned. This is the
case, as shown by von Nathusius,*(2) with the improved breeds of the
pig, which are descended from two distinct species; and in a less
marked manner with the improved breeds of cattle. A great anatomist,
Gratiolet, maintains that the anthropomorphous apes do not form a
natural sub-group; but that the orang is a highly developed gibbon
or Semnopithecus, the chimpanzee a highly developed Macacus, and the
gorilla a highly developed mandrill. If this conclusion, which rests
almost exclusively on brain-characters, be admitted, we should have
a case of convergence at least in external characters, for the
anthropomorphous apes are certainly more like each other in many
points, than they are to other apes. All analogical resemblances, as
of a whale to a fish, may indeed be said to be cases of convergence;
but this term has never been applied to superficial and adaptive
resemblances. It would, however be extremely rash to attribute to
convergence close similarity of character in many points of
structure amongst the modified descendants of widely distinct
beings. The form of a crystal is determined solely by the molecular
forces, and it is not surprising that dissimilar substances should
sometimes assume the same form; but with organic beings we should bear
in mind that the form of each depends on an infinity of complex
relations, namely on variations, due to causes far too intricate to be
followed,- on the nature of the variations preserved, these
depending on the physical conditions, and still more on the
surrounding organisms which compete with each,- and lastly, on
inheritance (in itself a fluctuating element) from innumerable
progenitors, all of which have had their forms determined through
equally complex relations. It appears incredible that the modified
descendants of two organisms, if these differed from each other in a
marked manner, should ever afterwards converge so closely as to lead
to a near approach to identity throughout their whole organisation. In
the case of the convergent races of pigs above referred to, evidence
of their descent from two primitive stock is, according to von
Nathusius, still plainly retained, in certain bones of their skulls.
If the races of man had descended, as is supposed by some naturalists,
from two or more species, which differed from each other as much, or
nearly as much, as does the orang from the gorilla, it can hardly be
doubted that marked differences in the structure of certain bones
would still be discoverable in man as he now exists.
* Lectures on Man, Eng. translat., 1864, p. 468.
*(2) Die Rassen des Schweines, 1860, s. 46. Vorstudien fur
Geschichte, &c., "Schweinesschadel," 1864, s. 104. With respect to
cattle, see M. de Quatrefages, Unite de l'Espece Humaine, 1861, p.
119.
Although the existing races of man differ in many respects, as in
colour, hair, shape of skull, proportions of the body, &c., yet if
their whole structure be taken into consideration they are found to
resemble each other closely in a multitude of points. Many of these
are of so unimportant or of so singular a nature, that it is extremely
improbable that they should have been independently acquired by
aboriginally distinct species or races. The same remark holds good
with equal or greater force with respect to the numerous points of
mental similarity between the most distinct races of man. The American
aborigines, Negroes and Europeans are as different from each other
in mind as any three races that can be named; yet I was incessantly
struck, whilst living with the Feugians on board the Beagle, with
the many little traits of character, shewing how similar their minds
were to ours; and so it was with a full-blooded negro with whom I
happened once to be intimate.
He who will read Mr. Tylor's and Sir J. Lubbock's interesting works*
can hardly fail to be deeply impressed with the close similarity
between the men of all races in tastes, dispositions and habits.
This is shown by the pleasure which they all take in dancing, rude
music, acting, painting, tattooing, and otherwise decorating
themselves; in their mutual comprehension of gesture-language, by
the same expression in their features, and by the same inarticulate
cries, when excited by the same emotions. This similarity, or rather
identity, is striking, when contrasted with the different
expressions and cries made by distinct species of monkeys. There is
good evidence that the art of shooting with bows and arrows has not
been handed down from any common progenitor of mankind, yet as
Westropp and Nilsson have remarked,*(2) the stone arrow-heads, brought
from the most distant parts of the world, and manufactured at the most
remote periods, are almost identical; and this fact can only be
accounted for by the various races having similar inventive or
mental powers. The same observation has been made by
archaeologists*(3) with respect to certain widely-prevalent ornaments,
such as zig-zags, &c.; and with respect to various simple beliefs
and customs, such as the burying of the dead under megalithic
structures. I remember observing in South America,*(4) that there,
as in so many other parts of the world, men have generally chosen
the summits of lofty hills, to throw up piles of stones, either as a
record of some remarkable event, or for burying their dead.
* Tylor's Early History of Mankind, 1865: with respect to
gesture-language, see p. 54. Lubbock's Prehistoric Times, 2nd ed.,
1869.
*(2) "On Analogous Forms of Implements," in Memoirs of
Anthropological Society by H. M. Westropp. The Primitive Inhabitants
of Scandinavia, Eng. translat., edited by Sir J. Lubbock, 1868, p.
104.
*(3) Westropp "On Cromlechs," &c., Journal of Ethnological Soc.,
as given in Scientific Opinion, June 2, 1869, p. 3.
*(4) Journal of Researches: Voyage of the Beagle, p. 46.
Now when naturalists observe a close agreement in numerous small
details of habits, tastes, and dispositions between two or more
domestic races, or between nearly-allied natural forms, they use
this fact as an argument that they are descended from a common
progenitor who was thus endowed; and consequently that all should be
classed under the same species. The same argument may be applied
with much force to the races of man.
As it is improbable that the numerous and unimportant points of
resemblance between the several races of man in bodily structure and
mental faculties (I do not here refer to similar customs) should all
have been independently acquired, they must have been inherited from
progenitors who had these same characters. We thus gain some insight
into the early state of man, before he had spread step by step over
the face of the earth. The spreading of man to regions widely
separated by the sea, no doubt, preceded any great amount of
divergence of character in the several races; for otherwise we
should sometimes meet with the same race in distinct continents; and
this is never the case. Sir J. Lubbock, after comparing the arts now
practised by savages in all parts of the world, specifies those
which man could not have known, when he first wandered from his
original birthplace; for if once learnt they would never have been
forgotten.* He thus shews that "the spear, which is but a
development of the knife-point, and the club, which is but a long
hammer, are the only things left." He admits, however, that the art of
making fire probably had been already discovered, for it is common
to all the races now existing, and was known to the ancient
cave-inhabitants of Europe. Perhaps the art of making rude canoes or
rafts was likewise known; but as man existed at a remote epoch, when
the land in many places stood at a very different level to what it
does now, he would have been able, without the aid of canoes, to
have spread widely. Sir J. Lubbock further remarks how improbable it
is that our earliest ancestors could have "counted as high as ten,
considering that so many races now in existence cannot get beyond
four." Nevertheless, at this early period, the intellectual and social
faculties of man could hardly have been inferior in any extreme degree
to those possessed at present by the lowest savages; otherwise
primeval man could not have been so eminently successful in the
struggle for life, as proved by his early and wide diffusion.
* Prehistoric Times, 1869, p. 574.
From the fundamental differences between certain languages, some
philologists have inferred that when man first became widely diffused,
he was not a speaking animal; but it may be suspected that
languages, far less perfect than any now spoken, aided by gestures,
might have been used, and yet have left no traces on subsequent and
more highly-developed tongues. Without the use of some language,
however imperfect, it appears doubtful whether man's intellect could
have risen to the standard implied by his dominant position at an
early period.
Whether primeval man, when he possessed but few arts, and those of
the rudest kind, and when his power of language was extremely
imperfect, would have deserved to be called man, must depend on the
definition which we employ. In a series of forms graduating insensibly
from some ape-like creature to man as he now exists, it would be
impossible to fix on any definite point where the term "man" ought
to be used. But this is a matter of very little importance. So
again, it is almost a matter of indifference whether the so-called
races of man are thus designated, or are ranked as species or
sub-species; but the latter term appears the more appropriate.
Finally, we may conclude that when the principle of evolution is
generally accepted, as it surely will be before long, the dispute
between the monogenists and the polygenists will die a silent and
unobserved death.
One other question ought not to be passed over without notice,
namely, whether, as is sometimes assumed, each sub-species or race
of man has sprung from a single pair of progenitors. With our domestic
animals a new race can readily be formed by carefully matching the
varying offspring from a single pair, or even from a single individual
possessing some new character; but most of our races have been formed,
not intentionally from a selected pair, but unconsciously by the
preservation of many individuals which have varied, however
slightly, in some useful or desired manner. If in one country stronger
and heavier horses, and in another country lighter and fleeter ones,
were habitually preferred, we may feel sure that two distinct
sub-breeds would be produced in the course of time, without any one
pair having been separated and bred from, in either country. Many
races have been thus formed, and their manner of formation is
closely analogous to that of natural species. We know, also, that
the horses taken to the Falkland Islands have, during successive
generations, become smaller and weaker, whilst those which have run
wild on the Pampas have acquired larger and coarser heads; and such
changes are manifestly due, not to any one pair, but to all the
individuals having been subjected to the same conditions, aided,
perhaps, by the principle of reversion. The new sub-breeds in such
cases are not descended from any single pair, but from many
individuals which have varied in different degrees, but in the same
general manner; and we may conclude that the races of man have been
similarly produced, the modifications being either the direct result
of exposure to different conditions, or the indirect result of some
form of selection. But to this latter subject we shall presently
return.
On the Extinction of the Races of Man.- The partial or complete
extinction of many races and sub-races of man is historically known.
Humboldt saw in South America a parrot which was the sole living
creature that could speak a word of the language of a lost tribe.
Ancient monuments and stone implements found in all parts of the
world, about which no tradition has been preserved by the present
inhabitants, indicate much extinction. Some small and broken tribes,
remnants of former races, still survive in isolated and generally
mountainous districts. In Europe the ancient races were all, according
to Shaaffhausen,* "lower in the scale than the rudest living savages";
they must therefore have differed, to a certain extent, from any
existing race. The remains described by Professor Broca from Les
Eyzies, though they unfortunately appear to have belonged to a
single family, indicate a race with a most singular combination of low
or simious, and of high characteristics. This race is "entirely
different from any other, ancient or modern, that we have heard
of."*(2) It differed, therefore, from the quaternary race of the
caverns of Belgium.
* Translation in Anthropological Review, Oct., 1868, p. 431.
*(2) Transactions, International Congress of Prehistoric Archaeology
1868, pp. 172-175. See also Broca (tr.) in Anthropological Review,
Oct., 1868, p. 410.
Man can long resist conditions which appear extremely unfavourable
for his existence.* He has long lived in the extreme regions of the
North, with no wood for his canoes or implements, and with only
blubber as fuel, and melted snow as drink. In the southern extremity
of America the Fuegians survive without the protection of clothes,
or of any building worthy to be called a hovel. In South Africa the
aborigines wander over arid plains, where dangerous beasts abound. Man
can withstand the deadly influence of the Terai at the foot of the
Himalaya, and the pestilential shores of tropical Africa.
* Dr. Gerland, Uber das Aussterben der Naturvolker 1868, s. 82.
Extinction follows chiefly from the competition of tribe with tribe,
and race with race. Various checks are always in action, serving to
keep down the numbers of each savage tribe,- such as periodical
famines, nomadic habits and the consequent deaths of infants,
prolonged suckling, wars, accidents, sickness, licentiousness, the
stealing of women, infanticide, and especially lessened fertility.
If any one of these checks increases in power, even slightly, the
tribe thus affected tends to decrease; and when of two adjoining
tribes one becomes less numerous and less powerful than the other, the
contest is soon settled by war, slaughter, cannibalism, slavery, and
absorption. Even when a weaker tribe is not thus abruptly swept
away, if it once begins to decrease, it generally goes on decreasing
until it becomes extinct.*
* Gerland, ibid., s. 12, gives facts in support of this statement.
When civilised nations come into contact with barbarians the
struggle is short, except where a deadly climate gives its aid to
the native race. Of the causes which lead to the victory of
civilised nations, some are plain and simple, others complex and
obscure. We can see that the cultivation of the land will be fatal
in many ways to savages, for they cannot, or will not, change their
habits. New diseases and vices have in some cases proved highly
destructive; and it appears that a new disease often causes much
death, until those who are most susceptible to its destructive
influence are gradually weeded out;* and so it may be with the evil
effects from spirituous liquors, as well as with the unconquerably
strong taste for them shewn by so many savages. It further appears,
mysterious as is the fact, that the first meeting of distinct and
separated people generates disease.*(2) Mr. Sproat, who in Vancouver
Island closely attended to the subject of extinction, believed that
changed habits of life, consequent on the advent of Europeans, induces
much ill health. He lays, also, great stress on the apparently
trifling cause that the natives become "bewildered and dull by the new
life around them; they lose the motives for exertion, and get no new
ones in their place."*(3)
* See remarks to this effect in Sir H. Holland's Medical Notes and
Reflections, 1839, p. 390.
*(2) I have collected (Journal of Researches: Voyage of the
Beagle, p. 435) a good many cases bearing on this subject; see also
Gerland, ibid., s. 8. Poeppig speaks of the "breath of civilisation as
poisonous to savages."
*(3) Sproat, Scenes and Studies of Savage Life, 1868, p. 284.
The grade of their civilisation seems to be a most important element
in the success of competing nations. A few centuries ago Europe feared
the inroads of Eastern barbarians; now any such fear would be
ridiculous. It is a more curious fact, as Mr. Bagehot has remarked,
that savages did not formerly waste away before the classical nations,
as they now do before modern civilised nations; had they done so,
the old moralists would have mused over the event; but there is no
lament in any writer of that period over the perishing barbarians.*
The most potent of all the causes of extinction, appears in many cases
to be lessened fertility and ill-health, especially amongst the
children, arising from changed conditions of life, notwithstanding
that the new conditions may not be injurious in themselves. I am
much indebted to Mr. H. H. Howorth for having called my attention
to this subject, and for having given me information respecting it.
I have collected the following cases.
* Bagehot, "Physics and Politics," Fortnightly Review, April 1,
1868, p. 455.
When Tasmania was first colonised the natives were roughly estimated
by some at 7000 and by others at 20,000. Their number was soon greatly
reduced, chiefly by fighting with the English and with each other.
After the famous hunt by all the colonists, when the remaining natives
delivered themselves up to the government, they consisted only of
120 individuals,* who were in 1832 transported to Flinders Island.
This island, situated between Tasmania and Australia, is forty miles
long, and from twelve to eighteen miles broad: it seems healthy, and
the natives were well treated. Nevertheless, they suffered greatly
in health. In 1834 they consisted (Bonwick, p. 250) of forty-seven
adult males, forty-eight adult females, and sixteen children, or in
all of 111 souls. In 1835 only one hundred were left. As they
continued rapidly to decrease, and as they themselves thought that
they should not perish so quickly elsewhere, they were removed in 1847
to Oyster Cove in the southern part of Tasmania. They then consisted
(Dec. 20th, 1847) of fourteen men, twenty-two women and ten
children.*(2) But the change of site did no good. Disease and death
still pursued them, and in 1864 one man (who died in 1869), and
three elderly women alone survived. The infertility of the women is
even a more remarkable fact than the liability of all to ill-health
and death. At the time when only nine women were left at Oyster
Cove, they told Mr. Bonwick (p. 386), that only two had ever borne
children: and these two had together produced only three children!
* All the statements here given are taken from The Last of the
Tasmanians, by J. Bonwick, 1870.
*(2) This is the statement of the Governor of Tasmania, Sir W.
Denison, Varieties of Vice-Regal Life, 1870, vol. i., p. 67.
With respect to the cause of this extraordinary state of things, Dr.
Story remarks that death followed the attempts to civilise the
natives. "If left to themselves to roam as they were wont and
undisturbed, they would have reared more children, and there would
have been less mortality." Another careful observer of the natives,
Mr. Davis, remarks, "The births have been few and the deaths numerous.
This may have been in a great measure owing to their change of
living and food; but more so to their banishment from the mainland
of Van Diemen's Land, and consequent depression of spirits"
(Bonwick, pp. 388, 390).
Similar facts have been observed in two widely different parts of
Australia. The celebrated explorer, Mr. Gregory, told Mr. Bonwick,
that in Queensland "the want of reproduction was being already felt
with the blacks, even in the most recently settled parts, and that
decay would set in." Of thirteen aborigines from Shark's Bay who
visited Murchison River, twelve died of consumption within three
months.*
* For these cases, see Bonwick's Daily Life of the Tasmanians, 1870,
p. 90: and The Last of the Tasmanians, 1870, p. 386.
The decrease of the Maories of New Zealand has been carefully
investigated by Mr. Fenton, in an admirable report, from which all the
following statements, with one exception, are taken.* The decrease
in number since 1830 is admitted by every one, including the natives
themselves, and is still steadily progressing. Although it has
hitherto been found impossible to take an actual census of the
natives, their numbers were carefully estimated by residents in many
districts. The result seems trustworthy, and shows that during the
fourteen years, previous to 1858, the decrease was 19.42 per cent.
Some of the tribes, thus carefully examined, lived above a hundred
miles apart, some on the coast, some inland; and their means of
subsistence and habits differed to a certain extent (p. 28). The total
number in 1858 was believed to be 53,700, and in 1872, after a
second interval of fourteen years, another census was taken, and the
number is given as only 36,359, shewing a decrease of 32.29 per
cent!*(2) Mr. Fenton, after shewing in detail the insufficiency of the
various causes, usually assigned in explanation of this
extraordinary decrease, such as new diseases, the profligacy of the
women, drunkenness, wars, &c., concludes on weighty grounds that it
depends chiefly on the unproductiveness of the women, and on the
extraordinary mortality of the young children (pp. 31, 34). In proof
of this he shews (p. 33) that in 1844 there was one non-adult for
every 2.57 adults; whereas in 1858 there was only one non-adult for
every 3.27 adults. The mortality of the adults is also great. He
adduces as a further cause of the decrease the inequality of the
sexes; for fewer females are born than males. To this latter point,
depending perhaps on a widely distinct cause, I shall return in a
future chapter. Mr. Fenton contrasts with astonishment the decrease in
New Zealand with the increase in Ireland; countries not very
dissimilar in climate, and where the inhabitants now follow nearly
similar habits. The Maories themselves (p. 35) "attribute their
decadence, in some measure, to the introduction of new food and
clothing, and the attendant change of habits"; and it will be seen,
when we consider the influence of changed conditions on fertility,
that they are probably right. The diminution began between the years
1830 and 1840; and Mr. Fenton shews (p. 40) that about 1830, the art
of manufacturing putrid corn (maize), by long steeping in water, was
discovered and largely practised; and this proves that a change of
habits was beginning amongst the natives, even when New Zealand was
only thinly inhabited by Europeans. When I visited the Bay of
Islands in 1835, the dress and food of the inhabitants had already
been much modified: they raised potatoes, maize, and other
agricultural produce, and exchanged them for English manufactured
goods and tobacco.
* Observations on the Aboriginal Inhabitants of New Zealand,
published by the Government, 1859.
*(2) New Zealand, by Alex. Kennedy, 1873, p. 47.
It is evident from many statements in the life of Bishop
Patteson,* that the Melanesians of the New Hebrides and neighbouring
archipelagoes, suffered to an extraordinary degree in health, and
perished in large numbers, when they were removed to New Zealand,
Norfolk Island, and other salubrious places, in order to be educated
as missionaries.
* Life of J. C. Patteson, by C. M. Younge, 1874; see more especially
vol. i., p. 530.
The decrease of the native population of the Sandwich Islands is
as notorious as that of New Zealand. It has been roughly estimated
by those best capable of judging, that when Cook discovered the
islands in 1779, the population amounted to about 300,000. According
to a loose census in 1823, the numbers then were 142,050. In 1832, and
at several subsequent periods, an accurate census was officially
taken, but I have been able to obtain only the following returns:
Native Population Annual rate of decrease
per cent, assuming it to
(Except during 1832 and have been uniform between
1836, when the few the successive censuses;
foreigners in the islands these censuses being taken
Year were included.) at irregular intervals.
1832 130,313
4.46
1836 108,579
2.47
1853 71,019
0.81
1860 67,084
2.18
1866 58,765
2.17
1872 51,531
We here see that in the interval of forty years, between 1832 and
1872, the population has decreased no less than sixty-eight per
cent! This has been attributed by most writers to the profligacy of
the women, to former bloody wars, and to the severe labour imposed
on conquered tribes and to newly introduced diseases, which have
been on several occasions extremely destructive. No doubt these and
other such causes have been highly efficient, and may account for
the extraordinary rate of decrease between the years 1832 and 1836;
but the most potent of all the causes seems to be lessened
fertility. According to Dr. Ruschenberger of the U. S. Navy, who
visited these islands between 1835 and 1837, in one district of
Hawaii, only twenty-five men out of 1134, and in another district only
ten out of 637, had a family with as many as three children. Of eighty
married women, only thirty-nine had ever borne children; and "the
official report gives an average of half a child to each married
couple in the whole island." This is almost exactly the same average
as with the Tasmanians at Oyster Cove. Jarves, who published his
History in 1843, says that "families who have three children are freed
from all taxes; those having more, are rewarded by gifts of land and
other encouragements." This unparalleled enactment by the government
well shews how infertile the race had become. The Rev. A. Bishop
stated in the Hawaiian Spectator in 1839, that a large proportion of
the children die at early ages, and Bishop Staley informs me that this
is still the case, just as in New Zealand. This has been attributed to
the neglect of the children by the women, but it is probably in
large part due to innate weakness of constitution in the children,
in relation to the lessened fertility of their parents. There is,
moreover, a further resemblance to the case of New Zealand, in the
fact that there is a large excess of male over female births: the
census of 1872 gives 31,650 males to 25,247 females of all ages,
that is 125.36 males for every 100 females; whereas in all civilised
countries the females exceed the males. No doubt the profligacy of the
women may in part account for their small fertility; but their changed
habits of life is a much more probable cause, and which will at the
same time account for the increased mortality, especially of the
children. The islands were visited by Cook in 1779, Vancouver in 1794,
and often subsequently by whalers. In 1819 missionaries arrived, and
found that idolatry had been already abolished and other changes
effected by the king. After this period there was a rapid change in
almost all the habits of life of the natives, and they soon became
"the most civilised of the Pacific Islanders." One of my informants,
Mr. Coan, who was born on the islands, remarks that the natives have
undergone a greater change in their habits of life in the course of
fifty years than Englishmen during a thousand years. From
information received from Bishop Staley, it does not appear that the
poorer classes have ever much changed their diet, although many new
kinds of fruit have been introduced, and the sugar-cane is in
universal use. Owing, however, to their passion for imitating
Europeans, they altered their manner of dressing at an early period,
and the use of alcoholic drinks became very general. Although these
changes appear inconsiderable, I can well believe, from what is
known with respect to animals, that they might suffice to lessen the
fertility of the natives.*
* The foregoing statements are taken chiefly from the following
works: Jarves' History of the Hawaiian Islands, 1843, pp. 400-407.
Cheever, Life in the Sandwich Islands, 1851, p. 277. Ruschenberger
is quoted by Bonwick, Last of the Tasmanians, 1870, p. 378. Bishop
is quoted by Sir E. Belcher, Voyage Round the World, 1843, vol. i., p.
272. I owe the census of the several years to the kindness of Mr.
Coan, at the request of Dr. Youmans of New York; and in most cases I
have compared the Youmans figures with those given in several of the
above-named works. I have omitted the census for 1850, as I have
seen two widely different numbers given.
Lastly, Mr. Macnamara states* that the low and degraded
inhabitants of the Andaman Islands, on the eastern side of the Gulf of
Bengal, are "eminently susceptible to any change of climate: in
fact, take them away from their island homes, and they are almost
certain to die, and that independently of diet or extraneous
influences." He further states that the inhabitants of the Valley of
Nepal, which is extremely hot in summer, and also the various
hill-tribes of India, suffer from dysentery and fever when on the
plains; and they die if they attempt to pass the whole year there.
* The Indian Medical Gazette, Nov. 1, 1871, p. 240.
We thus see that many of the wilder races of man are apt to suffer
much in health when subjected to changed conditions or habits of life,
and not exclusively from being transported to a new climate. Mere
alterations in habits, which do not appear injurious in themselves,
seem to have this same effect; and in several cases the children are
particularly liable to suffer. It has often been said, as Mr.
Macnamara remarks, that man can resist with impunity the greatest
diversities of climate and other changes; but this is true only of the
civilised races. Man in his wild condition seems to be in this respect
almost as susceptible as his nearest allies, the anthropoid apes,
which have never yet survived long, when removed from their native
country.
Lessened fertility from changed conditions, as in the case of the
Tasmanians, Maories, Sandwich Islanders, and apparently the
Australians, is still more interesting than their liability to
ill-health and death; for even a slight degree of infertility,
combined with those other causes which tend to check the increase of
every population, would sooner or later lead to extinction. The
diminution of fertility may be explained in some cases by the
profligacy of the women (as until lately with the Tahitians), but
Mr. Fenton has shewn that this explanation by no means suffices with
the New Zealanders, nor does it with the Tasmanians.
In the paper above quoted, Mr. Macnamara gives reasons for believing
that the inhabitants of districts subject to malaria are apt to be
sterile; but this cannot apply in several of the above cases. Some
writers have suggested that the aborigines of islands have suffered in
fertility and health from long continued interbreeding; but in the
above cases infertility has coincided too closely with the arrival
of Europeans for us to admit this explanation. Nor have we at
present any reason to believe that man is highly sensitive to the evil
effects of inter-breeding, especially in areas so large as New
Zealand, and the Sandwich archipelago with its diversified stations.
On the contrary, it is known that the present inhabitants of Norfolk
Island are nearly all cousins or near relations, as are the Todas in
India, and the inhabitants of some of the Western Islands of Scotland;
and yet they seem not to have suffered in fertility.*
* On the close relationship of the Norfolk Islanders, Sir W.
Denison, Varieties of Vice-Regal Life: vol. i., 1870, p. 410. For
the Todas, see Col. Marshall's work 1873, p. 110. For the Western
Islands of Scotland, Dr. Mitchell, Edinburgh Medical Journal, March to
June, 1865.
A much more probable view is suggested by the analogy of the lower
animals. The reproductive system can be shewn to be susceptible to
an extraordinary degree (though why we know not) to changed conditions
of life; and this susceptibility leads both to beneficial and to
evil results. A large collection of facts on this subject is given
in chap. xviii. of vol. ii. of my Variation of Animals and Plants
under Domestication, I can here give only the briefest abstract; and
every one interested in the subject may consult the above work. Very
slight changes increase the health, vigour, and fertility of most or
all organic beings, whilst other changes are known to render a large
number of animals sterile. One of the most familiar cases, is that
of tamed elephants not breeding in India; though they often breed in
Ava, where the females are allowed to roam about the forests to some
extent, and are thus placed under more natural conditions. The case of
various American monkeys, both sexes of which have been kept for
many years together in their own countries, and yet have very rarely
or never bred, is a more apposite instance, because of their
relationship to man. It is remarkable how slight a change in the
conditions often induces sterility in a wild animal when captured; and
this is the more strange as all our domesticated animals have become
more fertile than they were in a state of nature; and some of them can
resist the most unnatural conditions with undiminished fertility.*
Certain groups of animals are much more liable than others to be
affected by captivity; and generally all the species of the same group
are affected in the same manner. But sometimes a single species in a
group is rendered sterile, whilst the others are not so; on the
other hand, a single species may retain its fertility whilst most of
the others fail to breed. The males and females of some species when
confined, or when allowed to live almost, but not quite free, in their
native country, never unite; others thus circumstanced frequently
unite but never produce offspring; others again produce some
offspring, but fewer than in a state of nature; and as bearing on
the above cases of man, it is important to remark that the young are
apt to be weak and sickly, or malformed, and to perish at an early
age.
* For the evidence on this head, see Variation of Animals, &c., vol.
ii., p. 111.
Seeing how general is this law of the susceptibility of the
reproductive system to changed conditions of life, and that it holds
good with our nearest allies, the Quadrumana, I can hardly doubt
that it applies to man in his primeval state. Hence if savages of
any race are induced suddenly to change their habits of life, they
become more or less sterile, and their young offspring suffer in
health, in the same manner and from the same cause, as do the elephant
and hunting-leopard in India, many monkeys in America, and a host of
animals of all kinds, on removal from their natural conditions.
We can see why it is that aborigines, who have long inhabited
islands, and who must have been long exposed to nearly uniform
conditions, should be specially affected by any change in their
habits, as seems to be the case. Civilised races can certainly
resist changes of all kinds far better than savages; and in this
respect they resemble domesticated animals, for though the latter
sometimes suffer in health (for instance European dogs in India),
yet they are rarely rendered sterile, though a few such instances have
been recorded.* The immunity of civilised races and domesticated
animals is probably due to their having been subjected to a greater
extent, and therefore having grown somewhat more accustomed, to
diversified or varying conditions, than the majority of wild
animals; and to their having formerly immigrated or been carried
from country to country, and to different families or subraces
having inter-crossed. It appears that a cross with civilised races
at once gives to an aboriginal race an immunity from the evil
consequences of changed conditions. Thus the crossed offspring from
the Tahitians and English, when settled in Pitcairn Island,
increased so rapidly that the island was soon overstocked; and in June
1856 they were removed to Norfolk Island. They then consisted of 60
married persons and 134 children, making a total of 194. Here they
likewise increased so rapidly, that although sixteen of them
returned to Pitcairn Island in 1859, they numbered in January 1868,
300 souls; the males and females being in exactly equal numbers.
What a contrast does this case present with that of the Tasmanians;
the Norfolk Islanders increased in only twelve and a half years from
194 to 300; whereas the Tasmanians decreased during fifteen years from
120 to 46, of which latter number only ten were children.*(2)
* Variation of Animals, &c., vol. ii., p. 16.
*(2) These details are taken from The Mutineers of the Bounty, by
Lady Belcher, 1870; and from Pitcairn Island, ordered to be printed by
the House of Commons, May 29, 1863. The following statements about the
Sandwich Islanders are from the Honolulu Gazette, and from Mr. Coan.
So again in the interval between the census of 1866 and 1872 the
natives of full blood in the Sandwich Islands decreased by 8081,
whilst the half-castes, who are believed to be healthier, increased by
847; but I do not know whether the latter number includes the
offspring from the half-castes, or only the half-castes of the first
generation.
The cases which I have here given all relate to aborigines, who have
been subjected to new conditions as the result of the immigration of
civilised men. But sterility and ill-health would probably follow,
if savages were compelled by any cause, such as the inroad of a
conquering tribe, to desert their homes and to change their habits. It
is an interesting circumstance that the chief check to wild animals
becoming domesticated, which implies the power of their breeding
freely when first captured, and one chief check to wild men, when
brought into contact with civilisation, surviving to form a
civilised race, is the same, namely, sterility from changed conditions
of life.
Finally, although the gradual decrease and ultimate extinction of
the races of man is a highly complex problem, depending on many causes
which differ in different places and at different times; it is the
same problem as that presented by the extinction of one of the
higher animals- of the fossil horse, for instance, which disappeared
from South America, soon afterwards to be replaced, within the same
districts, by countless troups of the Spanish horse. The New Zealander
seems conscious of this parallelism, for he compares his future fate
with that of the native rat now almost exterminated by the European
rat. Though the difficulty is great to our imagination, and really
great, if we wish to ascertain the precise causes and their manner
of action, it ought not to be so to our reason, as long as we keep
steadily in mind that the increase of each species and each race is
constantly checked in various ways; so that if any new check, even a
slight one, be superadded, the race will surely decrease in number;
and decreasing numbers will sooner or later lead to extinction; the
end, in most cases, being promptly determined by the inroads of
conquering tribes.
On the Formation of the Races of Man.- In some cases the crossing of
distinct races has led to the formation of a new race. The singular
fact that the Europeans and Hindoos, who belong to the same Aryan
stock, and speak a language fundamentally the same, differ widely in
appearance, whilst Europeans differ but little from Jews, who belong
to the Semitic stock, and speak quite another language, has been
accounted for by Broca,* through certain Aryan branches having been
largely crossed by indigenous tribes during their wide diffusion. When
two races in close contact cross, the first result is a
heterogeneous mixture: thus Mr. Hunter, in describing the Santali or
hill-tribes of India, says that hundreds of imperceptible gradations
may be traced "from the black, squat tribes of the mountains to the
tall olive-coloured Brahman, with his intellectual brow, calm eyes,
and high but narrow head"; so that it is necessary in courts of
justice to ask the witnesses whether they are Santalis or Hindoos.*(2)
Whether a heterogeneous people, such as the inhabitants of some of the
Polynesian islands, formed by the crossing of two distinct races, with
few or no pure members left, would ever become homogeneous, is not
known from direct evidence. But as with our domesticated animals, a
cross-breed can certainly be fixed and made uniform by careful
selection*(3) in the course of a few generations, we may infer that
the free inter-crossing of a heterogeneous mixture during a long
descent would supply the place of selection, and overcome any tendency
to reversion; so that the crossed race would ultimately become
homogeneous, though it might not partake in an equal degree of the
characters of the two parent-races.
* "On Anthropology," translation, Anthropological Review, Jan.,
1868, p. 38.
*(2) The Animals of Rural Bengal, 1868, p. 134.
*(3) The Variation of Animals and Plants under Domestication vol.
ii., p. 95.
Of all the differences between the races of man, the colour of the
skin is the most conspicuous and one of the best marked. It was
formerly thought that differences of this kind could be accounted
for by long exposure to different climates; but Pallas first shewed
that this is not tenable, and he has since been followed by almost all
anthropologists.* This view has been rejected chiefly because the
distribution of the variously coloured races, most of whom have long
inhabited their present homes, does not coincide with corresponding
differences of climate. Some little weight may be given to such
cases as that of the Dutch families, who, as we hear on excellent
authority,*(2) have not undergone the least change of colour after
residing for three centuries in South Africa. An argument on the
same side may likewise be drawn from the uniform appearance in various
parts of the world of gipsies and Jews, though the uniformity of the
latter has been somewhat exaggerated.*(3) A very damp or a very dry
atmosphere has been supposed to be more influential in modifying the
colour of the skin than mere heat; but as D'Orbigny in South
America, and Livingstone in Africa, arrived at diametrically
opposite conclusions with respect to dampness and dryness, any
conclusion on this head must be considered as very doubtful.*(4)
* Pallas, Act. Acad. St. Petersburg, 1780, part ii., p. 69. He was
followed by Rudolphi, in his Beitrage zur Anthropologie, 1812. An
excellent summary of the evidence is given by Godron, De l'Espece,
1859, vol. ii., p. 246, &c.
*(2) Sir Andrew Smith, as quoted by Knox, Races of Man, 1850, p.
473.
*(3) See De Quatrefages on this head, Revue des Cours Scientifiques,
Oct. 17, 1868, p. 731.
*(4) Livingstone's Travels and Researches in S. Africa, 1857, pp.
338, 339. D'Orbigny, as quoted by Godron, De l'Espece, vol. ii., p.
266.
Various facts, which I have given elsewhere, prove that the colour
of the skin and hair is sometimes correlated in a surprising manner
with a complete immunity from the action of certain vegetable poisons,
and from the attacks of certain parasites. Hence it occurred to me,
that negroes and other dark races might have acquired their dark tints
by the darker individuals escaping from the deadly influence of the
miasma of their native countries, during a long series of generations.
I afterwards found that this same idea had long ago occurred to
Dr. Wells.* It has long been known that negroes, and even mulattoes
are almost completely exempt from the yellow fever, so destructive
in tropical America.*(2) They likewise escape to a large extent the
fatal intermittent fevers, that prevail along at least 2600 miles of
the shores of Africa, and which annually cause one-fifth of the
white settlers to die, and another fifth to return home invalided.*(3)
This immunity in the negro seems to be partly inherent, depending on
some unknown peculiarity of constitution, and partly the result of
acclimatisation. Pouchet*(4) states that the negro regiments recruited
near the Soudan, and borrowed from the Viceroy of Egypt for the
Mexican war, escaped the yellow fever almost equally with the
negroes originally brought from various parts of Africa and accustomed
to the climate of the West Indies. That acclimatisation plays a
part, is shewn by the many cases in which negroes have become somewhat
liable to tropical fevers, after having resided for some time in a
colder climate.*(5) The nature of
