Later on, the characters that distinguish man from even the highest of the apes become more and more pronounced. In the anthropoids the facial portion becomes more and more prominent, and betrays a bestiality absent from the human form. None the less the resemblance between the nearly mature fœtus of anthropoids and human embryos of about the sixth month is evident enough. M. Deniker had the good fortune to obtain the late fœtus of a gorilla—a very rare piece of fortune—and he has made an elaborate investigation of its structure. The general appearance (Fig. 10) is quite enough to show the close relationship with a human fœtus of a corresponding age (Fig. 11). It is plain, moreover, that the young gorilla is more human-like than is the adult. Detailed anatomical investigation only confirms this conclusion. The skulls of the young stages of anthropoids are much more human in their character than the adult skulls. Selenka states that such young skulls of different anthropoids not only resemble one another more closely, but are more human. As soon as the teeth begin to appear, the individual characters are assumed so rapidly, and become so marked, that, in the absence of the intermediate stages, it would be difficult to establish the kinships. The data derived from embryology do not point to any one of the existing genera of monkeys as the ancestor of man. They lead us to infer, rather, that man and the anthropoid apes had a common origin, and palæontological evidence must be scanned to find this ancestor. The greatest importance has been attached to a discovery in Java, made in 1894 by Eugène Dubois. The remains, consisting of the crown of a skull, two teeth and a femur, belonging to a creature for which the name _Pithecanthropus erectus_[58] has been invented, have been interpreted by several anatomists as those of a form intermediate between man and the anthropoid apes. However, as the facts about this creature are meagre and have been interpreted differently, I shall not make use of them in my argument. Even apart from them, the simian origin of man may be taken as proved. The series of facts that I have been employing as evidence of the relationship between men and anthropoid apes has been drawn from the observations of anatomists and embryologists. Darwin, seeking to broaden the basis of the argument, called attention to the resemblances of the parasites of men and apes, as evidence of a close similarity of physiological processes in the creatures. In the last few years, investigations in a very different field seem capable of throwing a novel light on the question.