The Descent of Man, and Selection in Relation to SexDarwin, Charles
History
The Descent of Man, and Selection in Relation to Sex
Darwin, Charles
Evolution (Biology); Human beings -- Origin; Sex differences; Sexual dimorphism (Animals); Sexual selection in animals
In forming a judgment on this head with reference to man, we must
glance at the classification of the Simiadae. This family is divided by
almost all naturalists into the Catarrhine group, or Old World monkeys,
all of which are characterised (as their name expresses) by the
peculiar structure of their nostrils, and by having four premolars in
each jaw; and into the Platyrrhine group or New World monkeys
(including two very distinct sub-groups), all of which are
characterised by differently constructed nostrils, and by having six
premolars in each jaw. Some other small differences might be mentioned.
Now man unquestionably belongs in his dentition, in the structure of
his nostrils, and some other respects, to the Catarrhine or Old World
division; nor does he resemble the Platyrrhines more closely than the
Catarrhines in any characters, excepting in a few of not much
importance and apparently of an adaptive nature. It is therefore
against all probability that some New World species should have
formerly varied and produced a man-like creature, with all the
distinctive characters proper to the Old World division; losing at the
same time all its own distinctive characters. There can, consequently,
hardly be a doubt that man is an off-shoot from the Old World Simian
stem; and that under a genealogical point of view he must be classed
with the Catarrhine division. (12. This is nearly the same
classification as that provisionally adopted by Mr. St. George Mivart,
(‘Transactions, Philosophical Society,” 1867, p. 300), who, after
separating the Lemuridae, divides the remainder of the Primates into
the Hominidae, the Simiadae which answer to the Catarrhines, the
Cebidae, and the Hapalidae,—these two latter groups answering to the
Platyrrhines. Mr. Mivart still abides by the same view; see ‘Nature,’
1871, p. 481.)
The anthropomorphous apes, namely the gorilla, chimpanzee, orang, and
hylobates, are by most naturalists separated from the other Old World
monkeys, as a distinct sub-group. I am aware that Gratiolet, relying on
the structure of the brain, does not admit the existence of this
sub-group, and no doubt it is a broken one. Thus the orang, as Mr. St.
G. Mivart remarks, “is one of the most peculiar and aberrant forms to
be found in the Order.” (13. ‘Transactions, Zoolog. Soc.’ vol. vi.
1867, p. 214.) The remaining non-anthropomorphous Old World monkeys,
are again divided by some naturalists into two or three smaller
sub-groups; the genus Semnopithecus, with its peculiar sacculated
stomach, being the type of one sub-group. But it appears from M.
Gaudry’s wonderful discoveries in Attica, that during the Miocene
period a form existed there, which connected Semnopithecus and Macacus;
and this probably illustrates the manner in which the other and higher
groups were once blended together.
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account