Page:Evolution of Life (Henry Cadwalader Chapman, 1873).djvu/225

Rh savages. If we now compare the mental powers of the higher animals, such as those of the Horse, Dog, Elephant, Monkeys, with those of such savages as we have mentioned, and these with the most cultivated of men, we come to the conclusion that the difference is certainly much less between the higher animals and the lower races of mankind than between these and men like Shakspeare, Newton, Hunter, Voltaire, La Place, Cuvier, Goethe, Gauss, Müller.

We hope now to have shown that the difference between Man and the other members of the animal kingdom is not one of kind, but only one of degree. Notwithstanding the great differences exhibited by the races of mankind in color, hair, skin, skull, teeth, mental and moral powers, every one admits that the civilized have descended from the barbarous races; the Australian of the present day, for example, representing pretty well the ancient Briton. But we hope to have shown that the difference between a Newton and an Australian is much greater than that between an Australian and the higher Apes. It follows, therefore, that if a Newton could be developed from an ancient Briton, or his living representative an Australian, an Australian could be developed from an Ape.

We began this chapter by stating that supposing the theory of the Evolution of Life to be true, the animal descent of man was a necessary consequence, and therefore the absence or presence of transitional forms was comparatively unimportant. In trying, however, to show that man differs from animals only in degree, not in kind, we hope to have made out a series of transitional forms, beginning with the lower monkeys and ascending from them, through the higher apes and the lower races of mankind, to the higher. Thus, the skulls of the Chimpanzee, Idiot, Negro, and Calmuck, offer a series of ascending forms. By comparing Figs. 197, 198, 199, 200, it will be seen that the receding forehead, which is a striking feature in the skulls of Negroes