BRITISH ASSOCIATION FOR THE ADVANCEMENT OF SCIENCE.

Wanganui Chronicle, Volume 7, Issue 327, 22 January 1863, Page 4

BRITISH ASSOCIATION FOR THE ADVANCEMENT OF SCIENCE.

GORILLA' AND MAN. In Section B (Zoology and Botany), Professor Owen read a paper “ On the Zoological significance of the Brain and Limb Characters of Man, with remarks on the cast of the brain of the gorilla.” Professor Owen exhibited two casts, one of the human brain, which had been h ardened in spirits, and had therefore not preserved its exact form ; but to all intents and purposes it would serve as an illustration of the ' human brain. The other cast was taken from the interior of the cranium of the gorilla. From an examination of these, the difference between the brain of man and that of monkeys was at once perceptible. In tlie brain of man the posterior lobes of the cerebrum overlapped, to a considerable extent, the small brain or, cerebellum, whereas in the gorilla tl’.e posterior lobes of the cerebrum did not project beyond the lobes of the cerebelluin. The posterior lobes in the one were prominent and well marked, in the other deficient. These peculiarities had been referred to by Todd and Bowman. Frqm a very prolonged investigation into the characters of animals, he felt persuaded that the characters of the brain were the most steadfast ; and he was thus induced, after many years of study, to propose his classification of the mammalia, based upon the differences in the developement of their brain structure. He had placed man—owing to" the prominence of the posterior lobes of his brain, the existence of a posterior cornu in the lateral ventricles, and the presence of a hippocampus minor in Hie posterior cornu—in, a distinct sub-kingdom, which he had called arclian-cephala, between which and the other members of the mammalia the distinctions were very marked, and tlie rise was a very abrupt one. The brain in his estimation was a far better guide in classifying animals than the foot, but the same difference that existed between their brains was also observable between their feet. The lecturer referred to a diagram which represented the feet of the aye-aye, the gorilla, and man, pointing out the chief differences in the structure of the skeleton. These differences he considered sufficiently great to elevate man from, the sub-kingdom to which the monkeys belonged, and to place him in a sub-kingdom by himself. Professor Huxley observed that the paper just laid before the section appeai’ed to him in no way to represent the real nature of the problem under discussion. He would therefore put that problem in another way. The question was pai*tly one of facts and partly one of reasoning. The question of fact was, what are the structural differences between man and the highest apes 1 The question of reasoning, what is the systematic value of those differences 1 Several years ago

Professor Owen had made three distinct assertions respecting the differences which obtain between the brain of man and that of the highest apes. He asserted that three structures were “ peculiar to and characteristic” of man’s brain—these being the “ posterior lobe,” the “ posterior cornu,” and the “ hippocampus minoi’,” In a controversy which had lasted for some years, Mr. Owen had not qualified these assertions, but had repeatedly reiterated them. He (Professor Huxley), on the other hand, had controverted these statements, and affirmed, on the contrary, that the three structures mentioned not only exist, but ure often better developed than in man, in all the higher apes. He (Professor Huxley) now appealed to the anatomists present in the section to say whether the universal voice of Continental and British anatomists had not entirely borne out his statements and refuted those of Professor Owen. The Professor then discussed the relations of the foot of man with those of the apes, and showed that the same argument could be based upon them as on the brain-—that argument being, that the structural differences between man, and the highest ape are of the same order, and only slightly different in degree from those which separate the apes one from another. In conclusion he expressed his opinion of the futility of discussions like the present. In his opinion, the differences between man and the lower animals are not to be expressed by his toes or his brain, but are moral and intellectual.

Professor Rolleston said he would try to supply the members of the Association, with the points of positive difference between the human and the ape’s brain. For. doing this we had been abundantly shown that the hippocampus minor and the posterior lobe were insufficient. As differentive they must be given up at last. But as much had recently been done for the descriptive anatomy of the brain by Gratiolet and others as had been done for astronomy by Stokes and Adams, for language by Max Mueller, and that this had been ignored in this discussion was little creditable to British science. This analysis of the brain’s structure had established as differentive between man and the ape four great differences—two morphological, two quantitative. The two quantitative are the great absolute weight and the great height of the human brain ; the two morphological, the muitifidity of the frontal lobes corresponding to the forehead, usually, popularly, and, as this analysis shows, correctly, taken as a fair exponent of man’s intelligence, and the absence of the external perpendicular figure. This had been abundantly shown by Gratiolet. No reference to these most important matter’s had been made by Professor Owen, and this omission couid not fail to put the British Asssociation’s repute for acquaintance with the work of foreign fellow-labourers at great disadvantage in the eyes of such foreigners as might be present. Professor Rolleston concluded by saying that if he

had expressed himself with any unnecessary vehemence he 'was sorry for it, but that he felt there were things less excusable than vehemence, and that the laws of ethics and love of truth were things higher and better than were the rules of etiquette or decorous reticence.

Mr W. H. Flower, looking at the sub ject solely in an anatomical view, and as a question of fact, stated that the result of a considerable number of dissections of brains of various monkeys was that the distinction between the brain of man and monkeys did not lie in the posterior lobe or the hippocampus minor, which parts were proportionately more largely deve loped in many monkeys than in man, and that if these parts were used in the classification of man and the monkeys the series would be—first, the little South American marmosets, then would follow the baboons, the cercopithea, macaque, then man must be placed, followed by the anthropoid apes, the orang-outang, chimpanzee, and gorilla, and last the American howling monkey. (A laugh.) Dr. Humpliery and Dr. Moleswortli having said a few words,. Professor Owen replied. Professor Rolleston had led the meeting to conclude that he had not paid any attention to the convolutions or the brain of mammals, and that the investigation of this subject was the exclusive property of the German anatomists, whereas he might be permitted to state that almost at the very time that Leuret wrote his memoir on this subject he had delivered a course of lec tures on the convolutions of the brain, which, he regretted, had not been published, owing to the pressure of other labours ; but the diagrams w'ere still in existence, as his successor could testify, in the museum of the Royal College of Surgeons. The thanks of the section were given to the Professor for his communication.

SPEECH OF- LORD DUNDREARY IN SECTION D., ON FRIDAY LAST, ON THE GREAT HIPPOCAMPUS QUESTION [We have been favoured with a copy of the following clever jeu cVesprit, which, we daresay, we are safe in saying is from the pen of the Rev. Professor Kingsley];— “Mr. President and Gentlemen, I mean Ladies and Mr. President, I am sure that all ladies and gentlemen present will see the matter just as I do ; and I am sure we are all very much obliged to these scientific men for quarrelling.—No.—l don’t mean that, that would’nt be charitable, and it’s a sin to steal a pin ; but I mean for letting us hear them quarrel, and so eloquently too ; though of course we don’t understand what is the matter, and which is in the right ; but of course we were very much delighted, and I may say, quite interested, to find that we had all hippopotamuses in our brains. Of course they’re right’you know, because seeing’s believing. Certainly, I never felt one in mine ; but perhaps it’s dead, and so didn’t stir, and then, of course it don’t count you know. A dead dog is as good as a live lion. Stop—no. A live lion is as good as a dead dog—no, that won’t do again. There’s a mistake somewhere. What was I saying ? Oh, Hippo-

potamuses. Well, I say, perhaps mine’s dead. The say hippopotamuses feed on water. No, I don’t think that, because teetotallers feed on water, and they are always lean ; and the hippo’s fat, at least in the Zoo. Live in water, it must be ; and there’s none in my brain. There was when I was a baby, my aunt says ; bub they tapped me ; so I suppose the hippopotamus died of drought. No—stop. It wasn’t a hippopotamus after all, it was hip—hip—not hip-hip hurrah, you know that comes after dinner, and the Section hasn’t dined, at least since last night, and the Cambridge wine is very good, I will say that.—No. I recollect now. Hippocampus it was. Hippocampus, a sea horse; I learnt that at Eton ; hippos, sea, and campus, a horse—no—campus, a sea, and hippos, a horse, that’s right. Only campus ain’t a sea it’s a field, I know that ; Campus Martius—l was swished for that at Eton—ought to be again, I believe, if every dog had his day. But at least it’s a sea-horse, I know that, because I saw one alive at Malta with the regiment, and it rang a bell. No ;it was a canary that rang a bell ; but this had a tail like a monkey and made a noise like a bell. I daresay you won’t believe me ; but ’pon honour I’m speaking truth—Noblesse oblige, you know ; and it had’nt been taught at all, and perhaps if it had it would’nt have learned ; but it did, and it was in a monkey’s tail. No stop, it must have been in its head, -because it .was in its brain—and every one has bi’ains in his head, unless he’ i a skeleton ; and it cur-

led its tail round things like a monkey, that I know, for I saw it with my own eyes. That was Professor Rolleston’s theory, you know. It was Professor Huxley said that it was in his tail—not Mr Huxley’s, of course, but the ape’s ; only apes have no tails, so I don’t quite see that. And then the other gentleman who got up last, Mr. Flower you know, lie said that it was all over the ape, everywhere. —All over liippocampuses, from head to foot, poor beast, like a dog all over ticks ! I wouder why they don’t rub bluestone into the back of its neck, as one does to a pointer. Well then.—Where was I ? Oh ! and Professor Owen said it was’nt in apes at all; but only in the order bimana that’s you and me. Well he knows best. And they all know best ton, for they are monstrous clever fellows. So one must be right and all the rest wrong, or else one of them wrong and all the rest right —you see that ? I wonder why they dont toss up about it. If they took a halfcrown now, or a shilling, or even a fourpenny would do, if they magnified it, and tost heads and tails, or Newmarket, if they

wanted to be quite sure, why then there couldn’t.be any dispute among gentlemen after that, of course. Well then, about men being ajjes, I say.why shouldn’t it be the other way, and the apes be men ? do you see ? Because then they might have as many hippocampuses in their brains as they liked, or hippopotamuses either, indeed. I should be very glad, indeed, if it was so, if it was only for my aunts sake i for she says that her clergyman says, that if any body ever finds a hippopotamus in a monkey’s head, nothing will save her great great, great —I can’t say how great, yon. see—its awful to think of—quite enormous grandfather from having been a monkey too ; and then what is to beeorne of her precious soul I So, for my Aunt’s sake, I should be very glad if it could be settled that v ay, really ; and lam sure the scientific gentlemen will take it into consideration, because they are gentlemen as every one knows, and would not hurt a lady’s feelings—the man who would strike a woman, you know—everybody knows that,, it’s in Shakspear. And besides, the niggers say that monkeys, are men, only they won’t work for fear of being made to talk ; no, won’t talk for fear of being made to work ; that’s it (right for once, as I live !) and put their hands over their eyes at night for fear of seeing the old gentleman—and I’m sure that’s just like a reasonable creature, I used to when I was a little boy ; and you see tbe niggers have lived among them for thousands of years and are monstrous like them too, d’ye see, and so they must know best ; and then it would be all right. Well then, about a, gulf. Professor Huxley says there’s a gulf between a man and an ape. I’m sure i’m glad of it, especially if the ape bit; —and Professor Owen says there ain’t. What lam I wrong, eh? Of course, Yes —beg a thousand pardons, really now. Of course—Professor O wen says there is, and Professor Huxley says there ain’t Well, a fellow can’t recollect everything. But I say, if there is a gulf, the ape might get over it and bite one after all. 1 know Quintus Ourtius jumped overagulph at Eton —that is, certainly, he jumped in : but that was his fault you see : if he’d put in more powder he might have cleared it, and then there would have been no gulph between him and an ape. But that don’t matter so much, because Professor Huxley said the gulf was bridged over by a structure. Now lam sure I dont wish, to be personal, especially after_ the very handsome way in which Professor Huxley

has drunk all our healths. . Stop—no. It’s we that ought to drink his health, I’m sure, Highland honours and all—but at the same time I should be obliged to. him if he’d told us a little more about this structure, especially considering what nasty mischievous things apes are—tore one of my coat tails off at the Zoological the other day. He ought—-no, I dont say that, because it would seem like dictation I don’t like that; never could do it at school—wrote it down all wrong—got swished—hate dictation ; but I might humbly express that Professor Huxley might have told us a little, you see about that structure. Was it wood ? Was it iron? Was it silver and gold, like London bridge when Lady Lee danced over ft before it was washed away by a man with, a pipe in his mouth ? No, stop, I say—that can’t be. A man with a pipe in liis mouth wash away a bridge ? Why a fellow can’t work hard with a pipe in his mouth—everybody knows that—much less wash away a whole bridge. No, its quite absurd—quite. Only I say, I should; like to know something about this structure, if it was only to quiet my aunt. And; then, if Professor Huxley can see the structure, why can’t Professor O wen ? It can’t be invisible, you know, unless it was. painted invisible green, like Ben Hall’s, new Bridge at Chelsea ; only you can see that of course, for you have to pay now when you go over, so I suppose the green ain’t the right colour. But that’s anotherreason why 1 want them ,to toss up —toss up, you see, whether they saw it or not, or which of them should see it, or something of that kind, I’m sure that’s the only way to settle ; and—oh, by tbe bye, as I said before—only I didn’t, but I ought to have —lf either of the gentlemen havn’t half-a-crown about them, why a two-shilling piece might do ; though I never cany then myself for fear of giving one of them to a keeper ; and then he sets you down for a screw, you know. Because, you see, I see, I don’t quite see, aiid no offence to-, honourable members—learned.and eloquent gentlemen, I mean ; and though. I dont wish to dictate, I don’t quite think ladies and gentlemen quite see either. You see. that?” Lord, who had expressed so accurately the general senseof the meeting, sat down amid loud applause.)