And the subject is just opening. We have hardly any results to present to you. On the contrary, we have extreme views clashing with one another, as much as the views which divide men concerning matters of their salvation, which interest men with reference to their social organizations; for we have schools in natural history, as there have been schools in philosophy. We have, as it were, sects, as there are different denominations among Christians; and no one has a right to present his view of the subject as the only correct one. His obligation is to present his facts and to discuss his arguments in the hope of pressing his views, if he believes them, if he is chiefly convinced of their accuracy, upon his hearers, but not with the pretension that he has found the final solution of the problem. There is a great change in that respect. It is no longer possible for any man, or for any set of men, to assume that the truth is in them exclusively. Men have learned that there is only one common foundation for their beliefs, however they may differ from one another in their religious principles. Men have learned that there is only one source for their knowledge, which is Nature, however much they may differ in their interpretation of Nature's facts; and it is with that conviction that I present, this evening, my views upon the subject of the relation which exists between man and the monkey, urging them with the consciousness that there are other views entertained by others. [Applause.]

I wish, however, to begin my statement with a clean record, and therefore I want to consider accusations which have been made against me in scientific as well as other journals. It has been stated that in my public lectures I make loose statements which are not accurate in matters of fact; that I allow myself to be carried away by the impulse of the moment, and that my statements lack that precision which entitles them to respect and confidence; and examples of such loose statements are quoted. Now I will, that you may know within what limit my statements are considered, answer just a few of these charges. In some of the lectures I have stated that vertebrates have four limbs, and it is argued that everybody who is familiar with the last records of our science knows that whales,

that porpoises, that manatuses, and dugongs have only two limbs. That I know is the statement of the textbooks, but text-books are only compilations of our knowledge, and if these critics had looked at the original information upon this matter, if they had consulted the best authorities upon the subject, they would know that rudimentary posterior elements exist in all these animals, and that they are only concealed by the skin. I have dissected porpoises, and I have had the opportunity of dissecting the manatus on the Amazon, so that I know from personal observation that these assertions I have quoted are correct, that besides the fully developed pair of limbs upon the side of the crustacea they have a second pair concealed under the skin which are imperfectly developed. I therefore reiterate my statement that there is a natural tendency in all vertebrates to develop four limbs, and that here and there only two are developed, and in some a second pair is concealed under the skin. And even the snakes have been ascertained to sustain a pair of rudimentary limbs under the skin. So much for that one statement. [Applause.] The second is that I affirm that fishes have lived -and a long list of other errors are enumerated that I affirm that fishes have existed from the beginning of creation, as early as other animals, while in reality they existed only from the time of the Devonian period. Now, how is it with dates? If, in the older strata, the remains were preserved as perfect, it might be as easy to distinguish a group of lobster from a group of fish; but in these older. beds, the remains which we have, and which have been. interpreted by some as fish and by others as crustacea, there are only fragmentary spines, such as we have in the fin of some fishes; for instance, in the common dogfish, the dorsal fin has in its anterior part a small, bony spine which projects in this way. On the other hand, the horseshoe group has upon the sides of the second shield a series of spines which are somewhat alike in appearance to those spines. Now, spines of the kind resembling these are numerous in the oldest beds in which fossil remains have been found, and the question is whether they are the remains of crustacea or the remains of fishes. Some naturalists have affirmed that they are the remains of crus

tacea. I have affirmed that they are the remains of fishes, and I have based my assertion upon this: that the structure of the spines of the crustacea when examined microscopically have all the characteristics of the horny substance which forms the shield of crustacea, while the spines of fishes have the characteristic structure, microscopically, of bones, which is easily distinguished from every other structure. Now, those spines of the oldest deposits have the characteristic of bones; therefore, I say again, that these spines are the spines of fishes, and I am not wrong when I say that fishes existed as early as any other animals. [Applause.]

But this is no place for a controversy, and I will now turn to the subject of this evening's lecture, and consider with you the question of the relation which exists between the monkey and man. That question is a recent question. Ancient naturalists did not think of comparing man and monkeys any more specifically than they compared man with other animals. The works of Aristotle, in which we have the earliest comparisons of this kind, two thousand years ago, discussed the structure of man as compared with animals, but he did not find a special resemblance between monkeys and man any more than between man and the other warm-blooded vertebrates. And the reason is very obvious. In those days the only monkeys known were of three species. The bifacus, as Aristotle calls him, the common monkey of Northern Africa, which was frequently, no doubt, brought to Greece, as in our days it is frequently brought to the southern parts of Europe; the second was the cebus, or the red monkey of North Africa, which is quite common on the coast of Barbary, a long-tailed monkey of reddish color, with a pointed snout somewhat like the common monkeys that obtain over South America, but differing from them in many respects in the peculiarities of face, teeth, and the like. The third species the baboon, of which representations are to be seen on ancient Egyptian monuments. Now, neither of these classes of monkeys has anything particularly human about it. The baboon has a head not unlike that of a bull-dog; and it was called by the ancients, kunocephalous, or dog-headed, on account of that peculiar

constitution of its head. But after the passage to the East Indies around by the Cape of Good Hope had been discovered, naturalists became acquainted with several kinds of monkeys in the East Indies and on the West Coast of Africa which stand far above those known to the ancients; and among them are none more striking than the orangoutang of Borneo, Java, and Sumatra, and the chimpanzee of the Coast of Guinea. These two species excited the curiosity of anatomists to the utmost, and at once their comparison with man was called for in consequence of the higher form of the head and the peculiar development of the features of the face. From that time comparisons between monkeys and men have been introduced in all treatises on natural history. These comparisons have always had for their object, to establish the differences which exist between the two. Recently, a third kind of monkey, closely allied to the last mentioned, has been found the baboons, which, encountered in the more southern parts of West Africa, have been described under the name of gorillas. It is now ascertained that these animals were already known to the Greeks, though very imperfectly; for in the writings of Anno there is an allusion to a small kind of hairy men, observed on the West Coast of Africa, which could not speak, and which were very savage and indomitable. Now that the gorilla is known, it cannot be doubted that the animal mentioned by Anno was this kind of monkey.

Now the question is, what are the structural relations which exist between these monkeys and other kinds of monkeys, and between all monkeys taken together and mankind? Before I proceed to compare them more closely, let me say a few general words concerning their distribution. All the monkeys known are to be found within the tropics; for it is only upon the borders of the tropics, in the parts adjoining the warm temperate zone, in the Old World, on the southern extremity of Spain, on the rocks of Gibraltar, that a few monkeys have been found; and a few also in the southernmost part of Japan. Otherwise the home of all monkeys is within the tropics, with the exception of Australia in which none exist at all. But monkeys are not the same in different parts of the world;