The analogy, it is clear, is fundamentally wrong. Dolphins, rorquals and sibaldius belong to the lowest order of mammals; man, even if his body alone is considered, belongs incontestably to the highest order. Unless we make him a solitary exception, it is to the laws of the superior groups that he should be subject, and not to those of the inferior. Thus, we are so far justified in affirming that man could not have been originally cosmopolitan. But we can go further. VI. Without having come into existence in every place where we now meet with him, man may have had several centres of appearance. Let us examine this latter question. The laws of progressive localisation and the characterisation of centres enable us both to put the question and to solve it. Let us re-examine from this point of view the animal groups, setting aside all inferior groups and confining our attention to anthropoid apes. In this family, which most closely resembles man in its organisation, there are degrees also. The law of progressive localisation applies to this limited group equally with the entire kingdom. We meet with the entire family in Asia, in the peninsula of Malacca, in Assam to 26° N. Lat., in Sumatra, Java, Borneo and in the Philippine Islands; in Eastern Africa from 10° S. to 15° N. Lat. The gibbon genus, however, which is the lowest, is the only one which occupies the whole of Asia. The orang is confined to Borneo and Sumatra. In Africa the chimpanzee extends almost from the Zaïre to Senegal; the gorilla has only been found on the Gaboon, and perhaps in Ashantee. Were he to occupy all the space which is still left blank upon that part of our maps by travellers, his area of habitation would even then be very limited. Thus, the higher the anthropoid type, the more limited the area of habitation. If we consider the material organism alone, the human type is incontestably superior to that of the orang or gorilla. He must then have been originally localised just as much as these animal types. It will perhaps be objected that the great apes are gradually disappearing, and that the few survivors do no more than show that they once existed in greater numbers. This would be an entirely gratuitous hypothesis having no foundation in facts, and we shall at least be permitted to reply, that the gorilla and the orang might very well have continued to exist in those places where the chimpanzee and gibbon are still living. Now, what are the areas occupied by the latter compared with the human area? VII. I have, as yet, neglected exceptional types, such as the marsupials, the edentata, the makis, etc.; I did not wish to argue from aberrant forms; I confined myself to demonstrating the _laws_ in action in species of a so-called normal organisation. Aberrant types have, however, a very high value, and furnish us with further instruction.