"Surely these facts should reveal man's origin as analogous to that of the other mammals, if his organization only be looked to. But the following consideration must be added. New wants, developed in societies which had become numerous, must have correspondingly multiplied the ideas of this dominant race, whose individuals must have therefore gradually felt the need of fuller communication with each other. Hence the necessity for increasing and varying the number of the signs suitable for mutual understanding. It is plain therefore that incessant efforts would be made in this direction.[319] "The lower animals, though often social, have been kept in too great subjection for any such development of power. They continue, therefore, stationary as regards their wants and ideas, very few of which need be communicated from one individual to another. A few movements of the body, a few simple cries and whistles, or inflexions of voice, would suffice for their purpose. With the dominant race, on the other hand, the continued multiplication of ideas which it was desirable to communicate rapidly, would exhaust the power of pantomimic gesture and of all possible inflexions of the voice--therefore by a succession of efforts this race arrived at the utterance of articulate sounds. A few only would be at first made use of, and these would be supplemented by inflexions of the voice: presently they would increase in number, variety, and appropriateness, with the increase of needs and of the efforts made to speak. Habitual exercise would increase the power of the lips and tongue to articulate distinctly. "The diversity of language is due to geographical distribution, with consequent greater or less isolation of certain races, and corruption of the signs originally agreed upon for each idea. Man's own wants, therefore, will have achieved the whole result. They will have given rise to endeavour, and habitual use will have developed the organs of articulation."[320] How, let me ask again, is "the case of neuter insects" "demonstrative" against the "well-known" theory put forward in the foregoing chapter? FOOTNOTES: [208] 'Phil. Zool.,' tom. i., edited by M. Martins, 1873, pp. 25, 26. [209] 'Phil. Zool.' tom. i. pp. 26, 27. [210] Page 28. [211] Pages 28-31. [212] 'Phil. Zool.,' tom. i. pp. 34, 35. [213] Page 42. [214] Page 46. [215] 'Phil. Zool.,' tom. i. p. 50. [216] Pages 50, 51. [217] 'Origin of Species,' p. 395, ed. 1876. [218] 'Phil. Zool.,' tom. i. p. 61. [219] 'Phil. Zool.,' tom. i. p. 62. [220] Page 63. [221] Page 64. [222] Page 65. [223] Page 67. [224] Chap. iii. [225] 'Phil. Zool.,' tom. i. p. 72. [226] Pages 71-73. [227] 'Phil. Zool.,' tom. i. p. 74, 75. [228] 'Phil. Zool.,' tom. i. pp. 75-77. [229] 'Origin of Species,' p. 104, ed. 1876. [230] 'Phil. Zool.,' tom. i. p. 79. [231] 'Phil. Zool.,' tom. i. pp. 79, 80. [232] 'Phil. Zool.,' tom. i. p. 80. [233] Page 80. [234] Ed. 1876. [235] 'Phil. Zool.,' tom. i. p. 81.