as Pithecanthropus or Eoanthropus dawsoni, or of the more recent genealogical theory and researches as to arboreal man. The call of these studies of man’s evolution is felt by all, and the difference in the two branches of biology may account for what must have struck many others, that is the neglect of adding the blue ribbon of science to the honours of the discoverer of the Okapi. These few trite remarks as to the importance of the nervous system in the making of man have been introduced here, though they bear more closely on the next two chapters, because this importance comes in at every stage of the present treatment of the origin of modifications in muscle. Anatomists’ Views of Muscles. There is a very strict and austere custom among anatomists, which doubtless is in a measure necessary, of insisting upon following rigorously the homologies of muscles, especially in human anatomy, and in this branch of a greater subject the canons are followed to an extent that surprises the seeker after origins. A remarkable example of this is in a paper by an eminent anatomist, now Professor at King’s College, Dr. E. Barclay Smith. It is a paper on the “Morphology of the short extensor of the human fingers.”[72] He says “the precise significance of this occasional _extensor brevis digitorum manus_ is a matter of considerable interest.” He gives four possible interpretations of this unusual muscle. The last, viz., that it is derived from a new muscle-germ alone interests us here because of the remarkable caution and austerity of his remarks on this interpretation. “If an _ext. brevis dig. manus_ cannot be regarded as an atavistic anomaly, or as a derivative from any existing musculature, the only way in which its presence can be accounted for is to suppose that it is of entirely new origin--the product of a new muscle-germ. Such an explanation is, of course, the last resort, and all other possible derivations must be disproved before it can be accepted.” The physiologist would probably think such an interpretation was the obviously first resort. The same writer discusses at length the homology of an exceedingly rare anomaly among muscles, the _extensor ossis metacarpi hallucis_, and his desire on the one hand to find a missing parent for Japhet, and his honesty and accuracy on the other hand lead him to say “even when it is present, it cannot be regarded as directly atavistic, since it does not represent a normal mammalian tendency.” And he adds a gentle but remote suggestion--“Brooks certainly describes such a muscle in _menobranchus_ and _hatteria_--two rare and remote reptiles!” But, lawful and necessary though this be, there must be stages on the path of human evolution where such a method must fail and the anatomists can do no more than hold aloof from theory or speculation, with a certain grim enjoyment of the disputes and difficulties of the genealogists. [72] Anatomical Society of Great Britain and Ireland, Trans., p. 54.