The most instructive levels of animal evolution are those where two or more great stocks have diverged from a primitive one. There may have been several factors leading to the division of the early Ungulates into the odd-toed and even-toed groups, of the Carnivora into cats, dogs and bears, the Felidæ into the highly-specialised genera of that intense family, the early parting of gibbons from the common anthropoid stem, and then the division of this line into the three great genera with which we are familiar. Whatever may have been the unknown factors in the environment such as changes of climate and level, geographical isolation, increase of foes, profusion or lack of food, to which these diverging stocks became adapted in their organs and form, in fact whatever we do _not_ know, we know this--that in their measure they acquired more convoluted and often larger brains, and the stimuli passing through their receptors into their consciousness increased with an everflowing tide, in volume, intensity and complexity. Many an archaic habit of their race they must unlearn, and it is doubtful if germinal selection would avail in this valuable process of economy as it is held to do in the case of the human little toe. It may be taken as granted that increasing complexity of brain in their own lines of life did accompany these adventurers of small or large groups. It follows that muscular changes from the original stock would follow neural changes, for movement and activity is inseparable from the animal, and the integrating action of the nervous system would constantly initiate, maintain and establish fresh habits and these be expressed in new muscular structure. Whatever higher uses, as we believe them to be, man makes of his brain, as reflection, reasoning, imagination and association, such were not the new properties acquired by these adventurers. They were very much concerned with hunger and love, and for them “philosophy” did not sustain the structure of their world. But more varied movements of head, trunk and limbs, and greater agility and strength brought them such prizes as were within their reach. This may be only another way of expressing Sir E. Ray Lankester’s conception of educability, which he maintains to be the only acquired character the organism inherits, and it may be therefore assumed to be under the iron law of selection. This must be accepted with the respect due to the high authority from which it proceeds. But such a conception, while it removes a false light in certain regions, sheds no light on the pathway of animal evolution, unless modifications be transmitted, and we can now take it that man does not inherit the power to speak which for incalculable ages he has been learning, nor to write, even though in the days of the early Pyramid-builders and the Sumerians in the plains of Chaldea they possessed the power of writing, nor can a musician’s child learn to play an instrument