The Project Gutenberg eBook, The Kingdom of Man, by Sir E. Ray (Edwin Ray) Lankester This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United States and most other parts of the world at no cost and with almost no restrictions whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License included with this eBook or online at www.gutenberg.org. If you are not located in the United States, you'll have to check the laws of the country where you are located before using this ebook. Title: The Kingdom of Man Author: Sir E. Ray (Edwin Ray) Lankester Release Date: July 18, 2019 [eBook #59928] Language: English Character set encoding: UTF-8 ***START OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK THE KINGDOM OF MAN*** E-text prepared by Turgut Dincer, John Campbell, and the Online Distributed Proofreading Team (http://www.pgdp.net) from page images generously made available by Internet Archive (https://archive.org) Note: Images of the original pages are available through Internet Archive. See https://archive.org/details/kingdomofman00lankrich TRANSCRIBER’S NOTE The change noted in the ERRATUM (pg xiii) has been applied to the etext. Footnote anchors are denoted by [number], and the footnotes have been placed at the end of the book. Basic fractions are displayed as ½ ⅓ ¼ etc; other fractions are shown in the form a/b, for example 1/5000. Some minor changes to the text are noted at the end of the book. Original cover (upper) Cranial Dome of Pithecanthropus erectus from river gravel in Java. (lower) Skull of a Greek from an ancient Cemetery. THE KINGDOM OF MAN BY E. RAY LANKESTER M.A. D.Sc. LL.D. F.R.S. HONORARY FELLOW OF EXETER COLLEGE, OXFORD; CORRESPONDENT OF THE INSTITUTE OF FRANCE; EMERITUS PROFESSOR OF UNIVERSITY COLLEGE, LONDON; PRESIDENT OF THE BRITISH ASSOCIATION FOR THE ADVANCEMENT OF SCIENCE DIRECTOR OF THE NATURAL HISTORY DEPARTMENTS OF THE BRITISH MUSEUM LONDON ARCHIBALD CONSTABLE & CO LTD 10 ORANGE STREET, LEICESTER SQUARE 1907 EXTINCT ANIMALS BY Prof. E. RAY LANKESTER, F.R.S. With a Portrait of the Author, and 218 other Illustrations Demy 8vo. Price 7s. 6d. net DESCRIPTIVE NOTE. The author gives us here a peep at the wonderful history of the kinds of animals which no longer exist on the surface of the globe in a living state, though once they flourished and held their own. Young and old readers will alike enjoy Prof. Lankester’s interesting narrative of these strange creatures, some of which became extinct millions of years ago, others within our own memory. The author’s account of the finding of their extant remains, their probable habits and functions of life, and their places in the world’s long history, is illustrated profusely from point to point, adding greatly to the entertainment of the story. Nature: “ ... We give the book a hearty welcome, feeling sure that its perusal will draw many young recruits to the army of naturalists, and many readers to its pages.” The Times: “There has been published no book on this subject combining so successfully the virtues of accuracy and attractiveness.... Dr. Lankester’s methods as an expositor are well known, but they have never been more pleasantly exemplified than in the present book.” The Athenæum: “Examples of Extinct Animals and their living representatives Professor Lankester has described with a masterly hand in these present pages.” LONDON ARCHIBALD CONSTABLE & CO LTD 10 ORANGE STREET, LEICESTER SQUARE EYRE & SPOTTISWOODE, H.M. PRINTERS, LONDON DESCRIPTION OF THE FRONTISPIECE The upper figure is from a cast of the celebrated specimen found in a river gravel in Java, probably of as great age as the palæolithic gravels of Europe. Though rightly to be regarded as a ‘man’—the creature which possessed this skull has been given the name ‘Pithecanthropus.’ The shape of the cranial dome differs from that of a well-developed European human skull (shewn in the lower photograph, that of a Greek skull) in the same features as do the very ancient prehistoric skulls from the Belgian caves of Spey, and from the Neanderthal of the Rhineland. These differences are, however, measurably greater in the Javanese skull. The three great features of difference are: (1) the great size of the eye-brow ridges (the part below and in front of A in the figures) in the Java skull; (2) the much greater relative height of the middle and back part of the cranial dome (lines e and f) in the Greek skull; (3) the much greater prominence in the Greek skull of the front part of the cranial dome—the prefrontal area or frontal ‘boss’ (the part in front of the line A C, the depth of which is shewn by the line d). The parts of the cranial cavity thus obviously more capacious in the Greek skull are precisely those which are small in the Apes and overlie those convolutions of the brain which have been specially developed in Man as compared with the highest Apes. The line A B in both the figures is the ophryo-tentorial line. It is drawn from the ophryon (the mid-point in the line drawn across the narrowest part of the frontal bone just above the eye-brow ridges), which corresponds externally to the most anterior limit of the brain, to the extra-tentorial point (between the occipital ridges) and is practically the base line of the cerebrum. The lines e and f are perpendiculars on this base line, the first half-way between A and B, the second half-way between the first and the extra-tentorial point. C is the point known to craniologists as ‘bregma,’ the meeting point of the frontal and the two parietal bones. The line A C is drawn as a straight line joining A and C—but if the skull is accurately posed it corresponds to the edge of the plane at right angles to the sagittal plane of the skull—which traverses both bregma (C) and ophryon (A)—and where it ‘cuts’ the skull marks off the prefrontal area or boss. (See for the full-face view of this area in the two skulls—Figs. 1 and 2.) The line d is a perpendicular let fall from the point of greatest prominence of the prefrontal area on to the prefrontal plane. It indicates the depth of the prefrontal cerebral region. Drawn on both sides on the surface of the bone and looked at from in front (the white dotted line in Figs. 1 and 2) it gives the maximum breadth of the prefrontal area. By dividing the ophryo-tentorial line into 100 units, and using those units as measures, the depths of the brain cavity in the regions plumbed by the lines d, e, and f, can be expressed numerically and their differences in a series of skulls stated in percentage of the ophryo-tentorial length. [Pg v] CONTENTS PAGE CHAPTER I. — Nature’s Insurgent Son 1 CHAPTER II. — The Advance of Science, 1881–1906 66 CHAPTER III. — Nature’s Revenges: The Sleeping Sickness 159 LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS Frontispiece: — Profile views of the Cranial Dome of Pithecanthropus erectus, the ape-like man from an ancient river gravel in Java, and of a Greek skull. Fig. 1. — Frontal view of the Cranial Dome of Pithecanthropus 16 Fig. 2. — Frontal view of the same Greek skull as that shown in the frontispiece 16 Fig. 3. — Eoliths, of ‘borer’ shape, from Ightham, Kent 18 Fig. 4. — Eoliths of trinacrial shape, from Ightham, Kent 20 Fig. 5. — Brain casts of four large Mammals 23 Fig. 6. — Spironema pallidum, the microbe of Syphilis discovered by Fritz Schaudinn 37 Fig. 7. — The Canals in Mars 43 Fig. 8. — The Canals in Mars 44 Fig. 9. — Becquerel’s shadow-print obtained by rays from Uranium Salt 73 Fig. 10. — Diagrams of the visible lines of the Spectrum given by incandescent Helium and Radium 76 Fig. 11. — The transformation of Radium Emanation into Helium (spectra) 83 Fig. 12. — Dry-plate photograph of a Nebula and surrounding stars 90 Fig. 13. — The Freshwater Jelly fish, Limnocodium 97 Fig. 14. — Polyp of Limnocodium 97 Fig. 15. — Sense-organ of Limnocodium 97 Fig. 16. — The Freshwater Jelly-fish of Lake Tanganyika 98 Fig. 17. — Sir Harry Johnston’s specimen of the Okapi 99 Fig. 18. — Bandoliers cut from the striped skin of the Okapi 99 Fig. 19. — Skull of the horned male of the Okapi 100 Fig. 20. — The metamorphosis of the young of the common Eel 101 Fig. 21. — A unicellular parasite of the common Octopus, producing spermatozoa 102 Fig. 22. — The Coccidium, a microscopic parasite of the Rabbit, producing spermatozoa 102 Fig. 23. — Spermatozoa of a unicellular parasite inhabiting a Centipede 103 Fig. 24. — The motile fertilizing elements (antherozoids or spermatozoa) of a peculiar cone-bearing tree, the Cycas revoluta 104 Fig. 25. — The gigantic extinct Reptile, Triceratops 106 Fig. 26. — A large carnivorous Reptile from the Triassic rocks of North Russia 107 Fig. 27. — The curious fish Drepanaspis, from the Old Red Sandstone of Germany 107 Fig. 28. — The oldest Fossil Fish known 108 Fig. 29. — The skull and lower jaw of the ancestral Elephant, Palæomastodon, from Egypt 109 Fig. 30. — The latest discovered skull of Palæomastodon 110 Fig. 31. — Skulls of Meritherium, an Elephant ancestor, from the Upper Eocene of Egypt 111 Fig. 32. — The nodules on the roots of bean-plants and the nitrogen-fixing microbe, Bacillus radicola, which produces them 114 Fig. 33. — The continuity of the protoplasm of vegetable cells 116 Fig. 34. — Diagram of the structures present in a typical organic ‘cell’ 117 Fig. 35. — The Number of the Chromosomes 119 Fig. 36. — The Number of the Chromosomes 120 Figs. 37 to 42. — Phagocytes engulphing disease germs— drawn by Metschnikoff 136- 7 Fig. 43. — A Phagocyte containing three Spirilla, the germs of relapsing fever, which it has engulphed 137 Fig. 44. — The life-history of the Malaria Parasite 142 Fig. 45. — The first blood-cell parasite described, the Lankesterella of Frog’s blood 144 Fig. 46. — Various kinds of Trypanosomes 145 Fig. 47. — The Laboratory of the Marine Biological Association on the Citadel Hill, Plymouth 155 Fig. 48. — The Tsetze fly, Glossina morsitans 172 Fig. 49. — The Trypanosome of Frog’s blood 173 Fig. 50. — The Trypanosome which causes the Sleeping Sickness 176 [vi] [vii] [viii] [ix] Fig. 51. — The Trypanosome of the disease called “Dourine” 177 Figs. 52 to 56. — Stages in the growth and multiplication of a Trypanosome which lives for part of its life in the blood of the little owl, Athene noctua, and for the other part in the gut of the common Gnat (Culex) 180- 3 PREFACE This little volume is founded on three discourses which I have slightly modified for the present purpose, and have endeavoured to render interesting by the introduction of illustrative process blocks, which are described sufficiently fully to form a large extension of the original text. The first, entitled ‘Nature’s Insurgent Son,’ formed, under another title, the Romanes lecture at Oxford in 1905. Its object is to exhibit in brief the ‘Kingdom of Man,’ to shew that there is undue neglect in the taking over of that possession by mankind, and to urge upon our Universities the duty of acting the leading part in removing that neglect. The second is an account, which served as the presidential address to the British Association at York in 1906, of the progress made in the last quarter of a century towards the assumption of his kingship by slowly-moving Man. The third, reprinted from the Quarterly Review, is a more detailed account of recent attempts to deal with a terrible disease—the Sleeping Sickness of tropical Africa—and furnishes an example of one of the innumerable directions in which Man brings down disaster on his head by resisting the old rule of selection of the fit and destruction of the unfit, and is painfully forced to the conclusion that knowledge of Nature must be sought and control of her processes eventually obtained. I am glad to be able to state that as a result of the representations of the Tropical Diseases Committee of the Royal Society, and, as I am told, in some measure in consequence of the explanation of the state of things given in this essay, funds have been provided by the Colonial Office for the support of a professorship of Protozoology in the University of London, to which Mr. E. A. Minchin has been appointed. It is recognized that the only way in which we can hope to deal effectually with such diseases as the Sleeping Sickness is by a greatly increased knowledge of the nature and life-history of the parasitic Protozoa which produce those diseases. I have to thank Mr. John Murray for permission to reprint the article on Sleeping Sickness, and I am also greatly indebted to scientific colleagues for assistance in the survey of progress given in the second discourse. Amongst these I desire especially to mention Mr. Frederick Soddy, F.R.S., Prof. H. H. Turner, F.R.S., Prof. Sydney Vines, F.R.S., Mr. MacDougal of Oxford, and Prof. Sherrington, F.R.S. To Mr. Perceval Lowell I owe my thanks for permission to copy two of his drawings of Mars, and to the Royal Astronomical Society for the loan of the star-picture on p. 90. E. Ray Lankester, January, 1907. [x] [xi] [xii] ERRATUM. Page 98: first line of description beneath Fig. 16., for Limnocodium read Limnocnida. [xiii] THE KINGDOM OF MAN CHAPTER I NATURE’S INSURGENT SON 1. The Outlook. It has become more and more a matter of conviction to me—and I believe that I share that conviction with a large body of fellow students both in this country and other civilized states—that the time has arrived when the true relation of Nature to Man has been so clearly ascertained that it should be more generally known than is at present the case, and that this knowledge should form far more largely than it does at this moment, the object of human activity and endeavour,—that it should be, in fact, the guide of state-government, the trusted basis of the development of human communities. That it is not so already, that men should still allow their energies to run in other directions, appears to some of us a thing so monstrous, so injurious to the prosperity of our fellow men, that we must do what lies within our power to draw attention to the conditions and circumstances which attend this neglect, the evils arising from it, and the benefits which must follow from its abatement. 2. The word ‘Nature.’ The signification attached to the word ‘Nature’ is by no means the same at the present day as it has been in the past: as commonly used it is a word of varied meanings and limitations, so that misconception and confusion is liable to be associated with it. By the professed student of modern sciences it is usually understood as a name for the entire mechanism of the universe, the kosmos in all its parts; and it is in this sense that I use it. But many still identify ‘Nature’ with a limited portion of that great system, and even retain for it a special application to the animals and plants of this earth and their immediate surroundings. Thus we have the term ‘natural history’ and the French term ‘les sciences naturelles’ limited to the study of the more immediate and concrete forms of animals, plants, and crystals. There is some justification for separating the conception of Nature as specially concerned in the production and maintenance of living things from that larger Nature which embraces, together with this small but deeply significant area, the whole expanse of the heavens in the one direction and Man himself in the other. Giordano Bruno, who a little more than 300 years ago visited Oxford and expounded his views, was perhaps the first to perceive and teach the unity of this greater Nature, anticipating thus in his prophetic vision the conclusion which we now accept as the result of an accumulated mass of evidence. Shakespeare came into touch with Bruno’s conception, and has contrasted the more limited and a larger (though not the largest) view of Nature in the words of Perdita and Polyxenes. Says Perdita:— ‘ ... the fairest flowers o’ the season Are our carnations, and streak’d gillyvors, Which some call Nature’s bastards; of that kind Our rustic garden’s barren; and I care not To get slips of them.... For I have heard it said, There is an art which, in their piedness, shares With great creating nature.’ To which Polyxenes replies:— ‘Say there be— Yet nature is made better by no mean, But nature makes that mean: so, over that art, Which, you say, adds to nature, is an art That nature makes. You see, sweet maid, we marry A gentle scion to the wildest stock; And make conceive a bark of baser kind By bud of nobler race; this is an art Which does mend nature,—change it, rather: but The art itself is nature.’ The larger proportion of so-called educated people even at the present day have not got beyond Perdita’s view of Nature. They regard the territory of Nature as a limited one, the play-ground or sport of all sorts of non-natural demons and fairies, spirits and occult agencies. Apart from any definite scheme or conception of these operations, they personify Nature and attribute a variety of virtues and tendencies to her for which there is no justification. We are told, according to the fancy of the speaker, that such a course is in accordance with Nature; that another course is contrary to Nature; we are urged to return to Nature and we are also urged to resist Nature. We hear that Nature will find a remedy for every ill, that Nature is just, that Nature is cruel, that Nature is sweet and our loving mother. On the one hand Man is regarded as outside of and opposed to Nature, and his dealings are contrasted favourably or unfavourably with those of Nature. On the other hand we are informed that Man must after all submit to Nature and that it is useless to oppose her. These contradictory views are in fact fragments of various systems of philosophy of various ages in which the word ‘Nature’ has been assigned equally various limitations and extensions. Without attempting to discuss the history and justification of these different uses of the word Nature, I think that I may here use the word Nature as indicating the entire kosmos of which this cooling globe with all upon it is a portion. [Pg 1] [2] [3] [4] 3. Nature-searchers. The discovery of regular processes, of expected effects following upon specified antecedents, of constant properties and qualities in the material around him, has from the earliest recorded times been a chief occupation of Man and has led to the attainment by Man of an extraordinarily complex control of the conditions in which his life is carried on. But it was not until Bruno’s conception of the unity of terrestrial nature with that of the kosmos had commended itself that a deliberate and determined investigation of natural processes, with a view to their more complete apprehension, was instituted. One of the earliest and most active steps in this direction was the foundation, less than 250 years ago, of the Royal Society of London for the Promotion of Natural Knowledge, by a body of students who had organized their conferences and inquiries whilst resident in Oxford.[1] All over Western Europe such associations or academies for the building up of the New Philosophy (as it was called here) came into existence. It is a fact which is strangely overlooked at the present day, when the assumption is made that the acquirement of a knowledge of Greek grammar is the traditional and immemorial occupation of Oxford students —that until the modern days of the eighteenth century (‘modern’ in the history of Oxford) Greek was less known in Oxford than Hebrew is at present, and that the study of Nature—Nature-knowledge and Nature-control—was the appropriate occupation of her learned men. It is indeed a fact that the very peculiar classical education at present insisted on in Oxford, and imposed by her on the public schools of the country, is a modern innovation, an unintentional and, in a biological sense, ‘morbid’ outgrowth of that ‘Humanism’ to which a familiarity with the dead languages was, but is no longer, the pathway. 4. The Doctrine of Evolution. What is sometimes called the scientific movement, but may be more appropriately described as the Nature-searching movement, rapidly attained an immense development. In the latter half of the last century this culminated in so complete a knowledge of the movements of the heavenly bodies, their chemical nature and physical condition—so detailed a determination of the history of the crust of this earth and of the living things upon it, of the chemical and physical processes which go on in Man and other living things, and of the structure of Man as compared with the animals most like him, and of the enormous length of time during which Man has existed on the earth—that it became possible to establish a general doctrine of the evolution of the kosmos, with more special detail in regard to the history of this earth and the development of Man from a lower animal ancestry. Animals were, in their turn, shown to have developed from simplest living matter, and this from less highly elaborated compounds of chemical ‘elements’ differentiated at a still earlier stage of evolution. There is, it may be said without exaggeration, no school or body of thinkers at the present day who are acquainted with the facts now ascertained, which denies the orderly evolution of the kosmos by the regular operation of a more or less completely ascertained series of properties resident in the material of which it consists.[2] The process of evolution—the interaction of these ascertainable, if not fully ascertained properties—has led (it is held), in the case of the cooling cinder which we call the earth—by an inevitable and predestined course—to the formation of that which we call living matter and eventually of Man himself. From this process all disorderly or arbitrary interferences must, it seems, be excluded. The old fancies as to presiding demons or fairies—which it was imagined had for their business to interrupt the supposed feeble and limited efforts of Nature, as yet unexplored and unappreciated—have passed out of mind. The consensus is complete: Man is held to be a part of Nature, a product of the definite and orderly evolution which is universal; a being resulting from and driven by the one great nexus of mechanism which we call Nature. He stands alone, face to face with that relentless mechanism. It is his destiny to understand and to control it. 5. Unwarranted inferences from the Evolution of Man. There are not wanting those who, accepting this conclusion, seek to belittle Man and endeavour to represent that the veil is lifted, that all is ‘explained’ obvious, commonplace, and mean in regard to the significance of life and of Man, because it has become clear that the kosmic process has brought them forth in due order. There are others who rightly perceive that life is no common property of our cooling matter, but unique and exceptional, and that Man stands apart from and above all natural products, whether animate or inanimate. Some of these thinkers appear to accept the conclusion that if life and Man are regarded as products of the kosmic process—that is, of Nature—‘life’ and ‘Man’ lose so much in importance and significance that dire consequences must follow to Man’s conception of his dignity and to the essential features of his systems of conduct and social organization. Accordingly they cling to the belief that living matter and Man have not proceeded from an orderly evolution of Nature, but are ‘super’ natural. It is found on the other hand, by many who have considered these speculations, and hold no less explicitly than do the ‘supernaturalists’ that life is a momentous and peculiar feature of our earth’s surface and Man the isolated and unparalleled ‘piece of work,’ ‘the beauty of the world,’ ‘the paragon of animals’—it is found by many such, I say, that nothing is gained in regard to our conception of Man’s nobility and significance by supposing that he and the living matter which has given rise to him, are not the outcome of that system of orderly process which we call Nature. There is one consideration in regard to this matter which, it seems, is often overlooked and should be emphasized. It is sometimes—and perhaps with a sufficient excuse in a want of acquaintance with Nature—held by those who oppose the conclusion that Man has been evolved by natural processes, that the products of Nature are arbitrary, haphazard, and due to chance, and that Man cannot be conceived of as originating by chance. This notion of ‘chance’ is a misleading figment inherited by the modern world from days of blank ignorance. The ‘Nature-searchers’ of to-day admit no such possibility as ‘chance.’ It will be in the recollection of many here, that a leading writer and investigator of the Victorian Era, the physicist John Tyndall, pointed out in a celebrated address delivered at Belfast that according to [5] [6] [7] [8] the conceptions of the mechanism of Nature arrived at by modern science—the structure of that mechanism is such that it would have been possible for a being of adequate intelligence inspecting the gaseous nebula from which our planetary system has evolved to have foreseen in that luminous vapour the Belfast audience and the professor addressing it! The fallacy that in given but unknown circumstances anything whatever may occur in spite of the fact that some one thing has been irrevocably arranged to occur, is a common one.[3] It is correct to assume in the absence of any pertinent knowledge (if we are compelled to estimate the probabilities) that one event is as likely as another to occur; but nevertheless there is no ‘chance’ in the matter since the event has been already determined, and might be predicted by those possessing the knowledge which we lack. Thus then it appears that the conclusion that Man is a part of Nature is by no means equivalent to asserting that he has originated by ‘blind chance’; it is in fact a specific assertion that he is the predestined outcome of an orderly—and to a large extent ‘perceptible’—mechanism.[4] 6. Nature’s Mode of Producing Organic Forms. The general process by which the higher and more elaborate forms of life, and eventually man himself, have been produced has been shown by Darwin to depend upon two important properties of living matter manifested in connexion with the multiplication of individuals. Living matter has a special property of adding to its bulk by taking up the chemical elements which it requires and building up the food so taken as additional living matter. It further has the power of separating from itself minute particles or germs which feed and grow independently, and thus multiply their kind. It is a fundamental character of this process of reproduction that the detached or pullulated germ inherits or carries with it from its parents the peculiarities of form and structure of its parent. This is the property known as Heredity. It is most essentially modified by another property—namely, that though eventually growing to be closely like the parent, the germ (especially when it is formed, as is usual, by the fusion of two germs from two separate parents) is never identical in all respects with the parent. It shows Variation. In virtue of Heredity, the new congenital variations shown by a new generation are transmitted to their offspring when in due time they pullulate or produce germs. Man has long been aware of this; and, by selecting variations of beasts, birds, or plants agreeable or useful to him, has intensified such variations and produced animals and plants in many features very unlike those with which he started. It was Darwin’s merit to show that a process of selection which he called ‘Natural Selection’ must take place in the free untouched conditions under which animals and plants exist, and have existed for ages, on this globe. Both animals and plants produce germs, or young, in excess—usually in vast excess. The world, the earth’s surface, is practically full, that is to say, fully occupied. Only one pair of young can grow up to take the place of the pair—male and female— which have launched a dozen, or it may be as many as a hundred thousand, young individuals on the world. The property of Variation ensures that amongst this excess of young there are many differences. Eventually those survive which are most fitted to the special conditions under which this particular organism has to live. The conditions may, and indeed in long lapses of time must, change, and thus some variation not previously favoured will gain the day and survive. The ‘struggle for existence’ of Darwin is the struggle amongst all the superabundant young of a given species, in a given area, to gain the necessary food, to escape voracious enemies, and gain protection from excesses of heat, cold, moisture, and dryness. One pair in the new generation—only one pair—survive for every parental pair. Animal population does not increase: ‘Increase and multiply’ has never been said by Nature to her lower creatures. Locally, and from time to time, owing to exceptional changes, a species may multiply here and decrease there; but it is important to realize that the ‘struggle for existence’ in Nature—that is to say, among the animals and plants of this earth untouched by man—is a desperate one, however tranquil and peaceful the battlefield may appear to us. The struggle for existence takes place, not as a clever French writer[5] glibly informs his readers, between different species, but between individuals of the same species, brothers and sisters and cousins. The struggle between a beast of prey which seeks to nourish itself and the buffalo which defends its life with its horns is not ‘the struggle for existence’ so named by Darwin. Moreover, the struggle among the members of a species in natural conditions differs totally from the mere struggle for advancement or wealth with which uneducated writers so frequently compare it. It differs essentially in this—that in Nature’s struggle for existence, death, immediate obliteration, is the fate of the vanquished, whilst the only reward to the victors—few, very few, but rare and beautiful in the fitness which has carried them to victory—is the permission to reproduce their kind—to carry on by heredity to another generation the specific qualities by which they triumphed. It is not generally realized how severe is the pressure and competition in Nature—not between different species, but between the immature population of one and the same species, precisely because they are of the same species and have exactly the same needs. From a human point of view the pressure under which many wild things live is awful in its severity and relentless tenacity. Not only are new forms established by natural selection, but the old forms, when they exactly fit the mould presented as it were for competitive filling, are maintained by the same unremitting process. A distinctive quality in the beauty of natural productions (in which man delights) is due to the unobtrusive yet tremendous slaughter of the unfit which is incessantly going on, and the absolute restriction of the privilege of parentage to the happy few who attain to the standard described as ‘the fittest.’ 7. The Limited Variety of Nature’s Products. The process of development of an immense variety of animal and vegetable forms has proceeded in this way through countless ages of geologic time, but it must not be supposed that any and every conceivable form and variety has been produced. There are only two great diverging lines of descent from original living matter—only the animals and the plants. And in each of these there are and have been only a limited number of branches to the pedigree—some coming off at a lower level, others at higher points when more elaborate structure has been attained. It is easy to imagine groups [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] of both plants and animals with characters and structures which have never existed and never will exist. The limitation of the whole process in spite of its enormous duration in time, its gigantic output and variety, is a striking and important fact. Linnaeus said, ‘There are just as many species as in the beginning the Infinite Being created’; and the modern naturalist can go no further than the paraphrase of this, and must say, ‘There are and have been just so many and just so few varieties of animal and vegetable structure on this earth as it was possible for the physical and chemical contents of the still molten globe to form up to the hour now reached.’ 8. The Emergence of Man. As to how and when man emerged from the terrestrial animal population so strictly controlled and moulded by natural selection is a matter upon which we gain further information year by year. There must be many here who remember, as I do, the astounding and almost sudden discovery some forty-five years ago of abundant and overwhelming evidence that man had existed in Western Europe as a contemporary of the mammoth and rhinoceros, the hyaena and the lion. The dispute over the facts submitted to the scientific world by Boucher de Perthes was violent and of short duration. The immense antiquity of man was established and accepted on all sides just before Mr. Darwin published his book on The Origin of Species. The palæolithic implements, though not improbably made 150,000 years ago, do not, any more than do the imperfect skulls occasionally found in association with them, indicate a condition of the human race much more monkey-like than is presented by existing savage races (see Figs. 1 and 2 and Frontispiece, and their explanations). The implements themselves are manufactured with great skill and artistic feeling. Within the last ten years much rougher flint implements, of peculiar types, have been discovered in gravels which are 500 feet above the level of the existing rivers (see Figs. 3 and 4). These “Eoliths” of the South of England indicate a race of men of less- developed skill than the makers of the Palæoliths, and carry the antiquity of man at least as far back beyond the Palæoliths as these are from the present day. We have as yet found no remains giving the direct basis for conclusions on the subject; but judging by the analogy (not by any means a conclusive method) furnished by the history of other large animals now living alongside of man—such as the horse, the rhinoceros, the tapir, the wolf, the hyaena, and the bear—it is not improbable that it was in the remote period known as the lower Miocene—remote even as compared with the gravels in which Eoliths occur—that Natural Selection began to favour that increase in the size of the brain of a large and not very powerful semi-erect ape which eventuated, after some hundreds of thousands of years, in the breeding-out of a being with a relatively enormous brain-case, a skilful hand, and an inveterate tendency to throw stones, flourish sticks, protect himself in caves, and in general to defeat aggression and satisfy his natural appetites by the use of his wits rather than by strength alone—in which, however, he was not deficient. Probably this creature had nearly the full size of brain and every other physical character of modern man, although he had not as yet stumbled upon the art of making fire by friction, nor converted his conventional grunts and groans, his screams, laughter, and interjections into a language corresponding to (and thenceforth developing) his power of thought. Fig. 1.—Pithecanthropus from Java Fig. 2.—Greek Skull Photographs of a front view of the two skulls shewn in profile in the frontispiece, taken so as to shew the breadth of the ‘forehead’ or prefrontal area, which is seen to be very much greater in the Greek skull (Fig. 2) than in the Javanese Pithecanthropus (Fig. 1). The prefrontal area is marked out by a black dotted line, the outline of a plane (the prefrontal plane) which is at right angles to the sagittal plane and passes through the meeting point of the frontal with the two parietal bones above; whilst below it passes through the median point called ‘ophryon.’ The plane of the picture is parallel with this prefrontal plane. The white dotted line gives the breadth of the boss-like prefrontal area. It is identical in position with the line d in the side view of the same skulls given in the frontispiece. The black dotted line is identical in position with the line A C in those figures. The two specimens are equally reduced in the photograph. (Original). Fig. 3. Photographs of eight Eoliths of one and the same shape, namely, with a chipped or worked tooth-like prominence, rendering the flint fit for use as a ‘borer’—photographed of half the actual size (linear measurement) from specimens found near Ightham, Kent, in the high-level gravel—which form part of the Prestwich collection in the Natural History Museum, Cromwell Road, London. Many others of the same shape have been found in the same locality. These and the trinacrial implements photographed in Fig. 4 are far older than the oval and leaf-shaped ‘palæoliths’ of the low-lying gravels of the valleys of the Thames, Somme, and other rivers. (Original). Fig. 4. Photographs of six Eoliths of the ‘shoulder-of-mutton’ or ‘trinacrial’ type—from the same locality and collection as those shewn in Fig. 3. The photographs are of half the length of the actual specimens. A considerable number of worked flints of this peculiar shape have been found in the same locality. Possibly their shape enabled the primitive men who ‘chipped’ and used them to attach them by thongs to a stick or club. The descriptive term ‘trinacrial’ is suggested by me for these flints in allusion to the form of the island of Sicily which they resemble. (Original). 9. The Enlarged Brain. [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] The leading feature in the development and separation of man from amongst other animals is undoubtedly the relatively enormous size of the brain in man, and the corresponding increase in its activities and capacity. It is a very striking fact that it was not in the ancestors of man alone that this increase in the size of the brain took place at this same period, viz. the Miocene. The great mammals such as the titanotherium, which represented the rhinoceros in early Tertiary times, had a brain which was in proportion to the bulk of the body, not more than one-eighth the volume of the brain of the modern rhinoceros (see Fig. 5). Other great mammals of the earlier Tertiary period were in the same case; and the ancestors of the horse, which are better known than those of any other modern animal, certainly had very much smaller brains in proportion to the size of their bodies than has their descendant. Fig. 5. Four casts of the brain-cavities of a series of large Ungulate Mammals in order to shew the relatively small size of the cerebral hemispheres of the extinct creature from which A is taken. A is that of Dinoceras, a huge extinct Eocene mammal which was as large as a Rhinoceros; B is that of Hippopotamus; C of Horse; and D of Rhinoceros. We may well ask to what this sudden and marked increase in the size of the brain in several lines of the animal pedigree is due. It seems that the inborn hereditary nervous mechanism by which many simple and necessary movements of the body are controlled and brought into relation with the outer world acting upon the sense-organs, can be carried in a relatively small bulk of brain-substance. Fish, lizards, and crocodiles with their small brains carry on a complex and effective life of relation with their surroundings. It appears that the increased bulk of cerebral substance means increased ‘educability’—an increased power of storing up individual experience—which tends to take the place of the inherited mechanism with which it is often in antagonism. The power of profiting by individual experience, in fact educability, must in conditions of close competition be, when other conditions are equal, an immense advantage to its possessor. It seems that we have to imagine that the adaptation of mammalian form to the various conditions of life had in Miocene times reached a point when further alteration and elaboration of the various types, which we know then existed, could lead to no advantage. The variations presented for selection in the struggle for existence presented no advantage—the ‘fittest’ had practically been reached, and was destined to survive with little change. Assuming such a relative lull in the development of mere mechanical form, it is obvious that the opportunity for those individuals with the most ‘educable’ brains to defeat their competitors would arise. No marked improvement in the instrument being possible, the reward, the triumph, the survival would fall to those who possessed most skill in the use of the instrument. And in successive generations the bigger and more educable brains would survive and mate, and thus bigger and bigger brains be produced. It would not be difficult (though not, perhaps, profitable) to imagine the conditions which have favoured the continuation of this process to a far greater length in the Simian line of the pedigree than in other mammalian groups. The result is that the creature called Man emerged with an educable brain of some five or six times the bulk (in proportion to his size and weight) of that of any other surviving Simian. Great as is this difference, it is one of the most curious facts in the history of man’s development that the bulk of his brain does not appear to have continued to increase in any very marked degree since early Palæolithic times. The cranial capacity of many savage races and of some of the most ancient human skulls is only a little less than that of the average man of highly-civilised race. The value of the mental activities in which primitive man differs from the highest apes may be measured in some degree by the difference in the size of the man’s and the ape’s brain; but the difference in the size of the brain of Isaac Newton and an Australian black-fellow is not in the remotest degree proportionate to the difference in their mental qualities. Man, it would seem, at a very remote period attained the extraordinary development of brain which marked him off from the rest of the animal world, but has ever since been developing the powers and qualities of this organ without increasing its size, or materially altering in other bodily features.[6] 10. The Progress of Man. The origin of Man by the process of Natural Selection is one chapter in man’s history; another one begins with the consideration of his further development and his diffusion over the surface of the globe. The mental qualities which have developed in Man, though traceable in a vague and rudimentary condition in some of his animal associates, are of such an unprecedented power and so far dominate everything else in his activities as a living organism, that they have to a very large extent, if not entirely, cut him off from the general operation of that process of Natural Selection and survival of the fittest which up to their appearance had been the law of the living world. They justify the view that Man forms a new departure in the gradual unfolding of Nature’s predestined scheme. Knowledge, reason, self-consciousness, will, are the attributes of Man. It is not my purpose to attempt to trace their development from lower phases of mental activity in man’s animal ancestors, nor even to suggest the steps by which that development has proceeded. What we call the will or volition of Man—a discussion of the nature and limitation of which would be impossible in these pages and is happily not necessary for my present purpose—has become a power in Nature, an imperium in imperio, which has profoundly modified not only man’s own history but that of the whole living world and the face of the planet on which he exists. Nature’s inexorable discipline of death to those who do not rise to her standard—survival and parentage for those alone who do—has been from the earliest times more and more definitely resisted by the will of Man. If we may for the purpose of analysis, as it were, extract Man from the rest of [23] [24] [25] [26] Nature of which he is truly a product and part, then we may say that Man is Nature’s rebel. Where Nature says ‘Die!’ Man says ‘I will live.’ According to the law previously in universal operation, Man should have been limited in geographical area, killed by extremes of cold or of heat, subject to starvation if one kind of diet were unobtainable, and should have been unable to increase and multiply, just as are his animal relatives, without losing his specific structure and acquiring new physical characters according to the requirements of the new conditions into which he strayed—should have perished except on the condition of becoming a new morphological ‘species.’ But Man’s wits and his will have enabled him to cross rivers and oceans by rafts and boats, to clothe himself against cold, to shelter himself from heat and rain, to prepare an endless variety of food by fire, and to ‘increase and multiply’ as no other animal without change of form, without submitting to the terrible axe of selection wielded by ruthless Nature over all other living things on this globe. And as he has more and more obtained this control over his surroundings, he has expanded that unconscious protective attitude towards his immature offspring which natural selection had already favoured and established in the animal race, into a conscious and larger love for his tribe, his race, his nationality, and his kind. He has developed speech, the power of communicating, and above all of recording and handing on from generation to generation his thought and knowledge. He has formed communities, built cities, and set up empires. At every step of his progress Man has receded further and further from the ancient rule exercised by Nature. He has advanced so far and become so unfitted to the earlier rule, that to suppose that Man can ‘return to Nature’ is as unreasonable as to suppose that an adult animal can return to its mother’s womb. In early tribal times natural selection still imposed the death penalty on failure. The stronger, the more cunning, the better armed, the more courageous tribe or family group, exterminated by actual slaughter or starvation the neighbouring tribes less gifted in one or all of these qualities. But from what we know of the history of warlike exterminating savage tribes at the present day—as, for instance, the Masai of East Africa—it seems unlikely that the method of extermination —that is, of true natural selection—had much effect in man’s development after the very earliest period. Union and absorption were more usual results of the contact of primitive tribes than struggles to the death. The expulsion of one group by another from a desired territory was more usual than the destruction of the conquered. In spite of the frequent assertions to the contrary, it seems that neither the more ancient wars of mankind for conquest and migration nor the present and future wars for commercial privilege have any real equivalence to the simple removal by death of the unfit and the survival and reproduction of the fit, which we know as Natural Selection.[7] The standard raised by the rebel man is not that of ‘fitness’ to the conditions proffered by extra-human nature, but is one of an ideal comfort, prosperity, and conscious joy in life—imposed by the will of man and involving a control and in important respects a subversion of what were Nature’s methods of dealing with life before she had produced her insurgent son. The progress of man in the acquirement of this control of Nature has been one of enormous rapidity within the historical period, and within the last two centuries has led on the one hand to immensely increased facilities in the application of mechanical power, in locomotion, in agriculture, and in endless arts and industries; and on the other hand to the mitigation of disease and pain. The men whom we may designate as ‘the Nature-searchers’—those who founded the New Philosophy of the Invisible College at Oxford and the Royal Society in London—have placed boundless power in the hands of mankind. 11. The Attainment by Man of the Knowledge of his Relations to Nature. But to many the greatest result achieved by the progress of Natural Knowledge seems not to have been so much in its practical applications and its material gifts to humanity as in the fact that Man has arrived through it at spiritual emancipation and freedom of thought. In the latter part of the last century man’s place in Nature became clearly marked out by the accumulation of definite evidence. The significance and the immeasurable importance of the knowledge of Nature to philosophy and the highest regions of speculative thought are expressed in the lines of one who most truly and with keenest insight embodied in his imperishable verse the wisdom and the aspirations of the Victorian age:— ‘Flower in the crannied wall, I pluck you out of the crannies: I hold you here, root and all, in my hand Little flower—but if I could understand What you are, root and all, and all in all, I should know what God and man is.’ To many the nearer approach to that ‘understanding’ has seemed the greatest and a sufficient result of scientific researches. The recognition that such an understanding leads to such vast knowledge would seem to ensure further and combined effort to bring it nearer and nearer to the complete form, even if the perfect understanding of the ‘all in all’ be for ever unattainable. Nevertheless, the clearer apprehension, so recently attained, of man’s origin and destiny, and of the enormous powers of which...