These are the proofs of Occultism, and they are rejected by Science. But how is the chasm between the mind of man and animal to be bridged in this case? How, if the anthropoid and homo primigenius had, _argumenti gratiâ_, a common ancestor—in the way modern speculation puts it—how did the two groups diverge so widely from one another as regards mental capacity? True, the Occultist may be told that in every case Occultism does what Science repeats; it gives a _common_ ancestor to ape and man, since it makes the former issue from Primæval Man. Aye, but that “Primæval Man” was _man_ only in external form. He was _mindless_ and _soulless_ at the time he begot, with a female animal monster, the forefather of a series of apes. This speculation—if speculation it be—is at least logical, and fills the chasm between the mind of man and animal. Thus it accounts for and explains the hitherto unaccountable and inexplicable. The fact—of which Science is almost certain—that, in the present stage of evolution, no issue can follow from the union of man and animal, is considered and explained elsewhere. Now what is the fundamental difference between the accepted (or nearly so) conclusions—as enunciated in _The Pedigree of Man_—that man and ape have a common ancestor, and the teachings of Occultism, which deny this conclusion and accept the fact that all things and all living beings have originated from one common source? Materialistic Science makes man evolve gradually to what _he is now_. Starting from the first protoplasmic speck called Moneron—which we are told has, like the rest, “originated in the course of immeasurable ages from a few, or from one simple, _spontaneously arising_ original form, that has obeyed one law of evolution”—he is made to pass through “unknown and unknowable” types up to the ape, and thence to the human being. Where the transitional shapes are discoverable we are not told; for the simple reason that no “missing‐links” between man and the apes have ever yet been found, though this fact in no way prevents men like Hæckel from inventing them _ad libitum_. Nor will they ever be met with; simply, again, because that link which unites man with his real ancestry is searched for on the objective plane and in the material world of forms, whereas it is safely hidden from the microscope and dissecting knife _within_ the animal tabernacle of man himself. We repeat what we have said in _Isis Unveiled_: