Mr. J. Wood, in his valuable series of papers,[184] has minutely described a vast number of muscular variations in man, which resemble normal structures in the lower animals. Looking only to the muscles which closely resemble those regularly present in our nearest allies, the Quadrumana, they are too numerous to be here even specified. In a single male subject, having a strong bodily frame and well-formed skull, no less than seven muscular variations were observed, all of which plainly represented muscles proper to various kinds of apes. This man, for instance, had on both sides of his neck a true and powerful "_levator claviculae_," such as is found in all kinds of apes, and which is said to occur in about one out of sixty human subjects.[185] Again, this man had "a special abductor of the metatarsal bone of the fifth digit, such as Professor Huxley and Mr. Flower have shewn to exist uniformly in the higher and lower apes." The hands and arms of man are eminently characteristic structures, but their muscles are extremely liable to vary, so as to resemble the corresponding muscles in the lower animals.[186] Such resemblances are either complete and perfect or imperfect, yet in this latter case manifestly of a transitional nature.

Certain variations are more common in man, and others in woman, without our being able to a.s.sign any reason. Mr. Wood, after describing numerous cases, makes the following pregnant remark: "Notable departures from the ordinary type of the muscular structures run in grooves or directions, which must be taken to indicate some unknown factor, of much importance to a comprehensive knowledge of general and scientific anatomy."[187]

That this unknown factor is reversion to a former state of existence may be admitted as in the highest degree probable. It is quite incredible that a man should through mere accident abnormally resemble, in no less than seven of his muscles, certain apes, if there had been no genetic connection between them. On the other hand, if man is descended from some ape-like creature, no valid reason can be a.s.signed why certain muscles should not suddenly reappear after an interval of many thousand generations, in the same manner as with horses, a.s.ses, and mules, dark-coloured stripes suddenly reappear on the legs and shoulders, after an interval of hundreds, or more probably thousands, of generations.

These various cases of reversion are so closely related to those of rudimentary organs given in the first chapter, that many of them might have been indifferently introduced in either chapter. Thus a human uterus furnished with cornua may be said to represent in a rudimentary condition the same organ in its normal state in certain mammals. Some parts which are rudimental in man, as the os coccyx in both s.e.xes and the mammae in the male s.e.x, are always present; whilst others, such as the supra-condyloid foramen, only occasionally appear, and therefore might have been introduced under the head of reversion. These several reversionary, as well as the strictly rudimentary, structures reveal the descent of man from some lower form in an unmistakeable manner.

_Correlated Variation._-In man, as in the lower animals, many structures are so intimately related, that when one part varies so does another, without our being able, in most cases, to a.s.sign any reason. We cannot say whether the one part governs the other, or whether both are governed by some earlier developed part. Various monstrosities, as I.

Geoffroy repeatedly insists, are thus intimately connected. h.o.m.ologous structures are particularly liable to change together, as we see on the opposite sides of the body, and in the upper and lower extremities.

Meckel long ago remarked that when the muscles of the arm depart from their proper type, they almost always imitate those of the leg; and so conversely with the muscles of the legs. The organs of sight and hearing, the teeth and hair, the colour of the skin and hair, colour and const.i.tution, are more or less correlated.[188] Professor Schaaffhausen first drew attention to the relation apparently existing between a muscular frame and strongly-p.r.o.nounced supra-orbital ridges, which are so characteristic of the lower races of man.

Besides the variations which can be grouped with more or less probability under the foregoing heads, there is a large cla.s.s of variations which may be provisionally called spontaneous, for they appear, owing to our ignorance, to arise without any exciting cause. It can, however, be shewn that such variations, whether consisting of slight individual differences, or of strongly-marked and abrupt deviations of structure, depend much more on the const.i.tution of the organism than on the nature of the conditions to which it has been subjected.[189]

_Rate of Increase._-Civilised populations have been known under favourable conditions, as in the United States, to double their number in twenty-five years; and according to a calculation by Euler, this might occur in a little over twelve years.[190] At the former rate the present population of the United States, namely, thirty millions, would in 657 years cover the whole terraqueous globe so thickly, that four men would have to stand on each square yard of surface. The primary or fundamental check to the continued increase of man is the difficulty of gaining subsistence and of living in comfort. We may infer that this is the case from what we see, for instance, in the United States, where subsistence is easy and there is plenty of room. If such means were suddenly doubled in Great Britain, our number would be quickly doubled.

With civilised nations the above primary check acts chiefly by restraining marriages. The greater death-rate of infants in the poorest cla.s.ses is also very important; as well as the greater mortality at all ages, and from various diseases, of the inhabitants of crowded and miserable houses. The effects of severe epidemics and wars are soon counterbalanced, and more than counterbalanced, in nations placed under favourable conditions. Emigration also comes in aid as a temporary check, but not to any great extent with the extremely poor cla.s.ses.

There is reason to suspect, as Malthus has remarked, that the reproductive power is actually less in barbarous than in civilised races. We know nothing positively on this head, for with savages no census has been taken; but from the concurrent testimony of missionaries, and of others who have long resided with such people, it appears that their families are usually small, and large ones rare. This may be partly accounted for, as it is believed, by the women suckling their infants for a prolonged period; but it is highly probable that savages, who often suffer much hardship, and who do not obtain so much nutritious food as civilised men, would be actually less prolific. I have shewn in a former work,[191] that all our domesticated quadrupeds and birds, and all our cultivated plants, are more fertile than the corresponding species in a state of nature. It is no valid objection to this conclusion that animals suddenly supplied with an excess of food, or when rendered very fat, and that most plants when suddenly removed from very poor to very rich soil, are rendered more or less sterile. We might, therefore, expect that civilised men, who in one sense are highly domesticated, would be more prolific than wild men. It is also probable that the increased fertility of civilised nations would become, as with our domestic animals, an inherited character: it is at least known that with mankind a tendency to produce twins runs in families.[192]

Notwithstanding that savages appear to be less prolific than civilised people, they would no doubt rapidly increase if their numbers were not by some means rigidly kept down. The Santali, or hill-tribes of India, have recently afforded a good ill.u.s.tration of this fact; for they have increased, as shewn by Mr. Hunter,[193] at an extraordinary rate since vaccination has been introduced, other pestilences mitigated, and war sternly repressed. This increase, however, would not have been possible had not these rude people spread into the adjoining districts and worked for hire. Savages almost always marry; yet there is some prudential restraint, for they do not commonly marry at the earliest possible age.

The young men are often required to show that they can support a wife, and they generally have first to earn the price with which to purchase her from her parents. With savages the difficulty of obtaining subsistence occasionally limits their number in a much more direct manner than with civilised people, for all tribes periodically suffer from severe famines. At such times savages are forced to devour much bad food, and their health can hardly fail to be injured. Many accounts have been published of their protruding stomachs and emaciated limbs after and during famines. They are then, also, compelled to wander much about, and their infants, as I was a.s.sured in Australia, perish in large numbers. As famines are periodical, depending chiefly on extreme seasons, all tribes must fluctuate in number. They cannot steadily and regularly increase, as there is no artificial increase in the supply of food. Savages when hardly pressed encroach on each other's territories, and war is the result; but they are indeed almost always at war with their neighbours. They are liable to many accidents on land and water in their search for food; and in some countries they must suffer much from the larger beasts of prey. Even in India, districts have been depopulated by the ravages of tigers.

Malthus has discussed these several checks, but he does not lay stress enough on what is probably the most important of all, namely infanticide, especially of female infants, and the habit of procuring abortion. These practices now prevail in many quarters of the world, and infanticide seems formerly to have prevailed, as Mr. M'Lennan[194] has shewn, on a still more extensive scale. These practices appear to have originated in savages recognising the difficulty, or rather the impossibility of supporting all the infants that are born.

Licentiousness may also be added to the foregoing checks; but this does not follow from failing means of subsistence; though there is reason to believe that in some cases (as in j.a.pan) it has been intentionally encouraged as a means of keeping down the population.

If we look back to an extremely remote epoch, before man had arrived at the dignity of manhood, he would have been guided more by instinct and less by reason than are savages at the present time. Our early semi-human progenitors would not have practised infanticide, for the instincts of the lower animals are never so perverted as to lead them regularly to destroy their own offspring. There would have been no prudential restraint from marriage, and the s.e.xes would have freely united at an early age. Hence the progenitors of man would have tended to increase rapidly, but checks of some kind, either periodical or constant, must have kept down their numbers, even more severely than with existing savages. What the precise nature of these checks may have been, we cannot say, any more than with most other animals. We know that horses and cattle, which are not highly prolific animals, when first turned loose in South America, increased at an enormous rate. The slowest breeder of all known animals, namely the elephant, would in a few thousand years stock the whole world. The increase of every species of monkey must be checked by some means; but not, as Brehm remarks, by the attacks of beasts of prey. No one will a.s.sume that the actual power of reproduction in the wild horses and cattle of America, was at first in any sensible degree increased; or that, as each district became fully stocked, this same power was diminished. No doubt in this case and in all others, many checks concur, and different checks under different circ.u.mstances; periodical dearths, depending on unfavourable seasons, being probably the most important of all. So it will have been with the early progenitors of man.

_Natural Selection._-We have now seen that man is variable in body and mind; and that the variations are induced, either directly or indirectly, by the same general causes, and obey the same general laws, as with the lower animals. Man has spread widely over the face of the earth, and must have been exposed, during his incessant migrations,[195]

to the most diversified conditions. The inhabitants of Tierra del Fuego, the Cape of Good Hope, and Tasmania in the one hemisphere, and of the Arctic regions in the other, must have pa.s.sed through many climates and changed their habits many times, before they reached their present homes.[196] The early progenitors of man must also have tended, like all other animals, to have increased beyond their means of subsistence; they must therefore occasionally have been exposed to a struggle for existence, and consequently to the rigid law of natural selection.

Beneficial variations of all kinds will thus, either occasionally or habitually, have been preserved, and injurious ones eliminated. I do not refer to strongly-marked deviations of structure, which occur only at long intervals of time, but to mere individual differences. We know, for instance, that the muscles of our hands and feet, which determine our powers of movement, are liable, like those of the lower animals,[197] to incessant variability. If then the ape-like progenitors of man which inhabited any district, especially one undergoing some change in its conditions, were divided into two equal bodies, the one half which included all the individuals best adapted by their powers of movement for gaining subsistence or for defending themselves, would on an average survive in greater number and procreate more offspring than the other and less well endowed half.

Man in the rudest state in which he now exists is the most dominant animal that has ever appeared on the earth. He has spread more widely than any other highly organised form; and all others have yielded before him. He manifestly owes this immense superiority to his intellectual faculties, his social habits, which lead him to aid and defend his fellows, and to his corporeal structure. The supreme importance of these characters has been proved by the final arbitrament of the battle for life. Through his powers of intellect, articulate language has been evolved; and on this his wonderful advancement has mainly depended. He has invented and is able to use various weapons, tools, traps, &c., with which he defends himself, kills or catches prey, and otherwise obtains food. He has made rafts or canoes on which to fish or cross over to neighbouring fertile islands. He has discovered the art of making fire, by which hard and stringy roots can be rendered digestible, and poisonous roots or herbs innocuous. This last discovery, probably the greatest, excepting language, ever made by man, dates from before the dawn of history. These several inventions, by which man in the rudest state has become so preeminent, are the direct result of the development of his powers of observation, memory, curiosity, imagination, and reason. I cannot, therefore, understand how it is that Mr. Wallace[198] maintains, that "natural selection could only have endowed the savage with a brain a little superior to that of an ape."

Although the intellectual powers and social habits of man are of paramount importance to him, we must not underrate the importance of his bodily structure, to which subject the remainder of this chapter will be devoted. The development of the intellectual and social or moral faculties will be discussed in the following chapter.

Even to hammer with precision is no easy matter, as every one who has tried to learn carpentry will admit. To throw a stone with as true an aim as can a Fuegian in defending himself, or in killing birds, requires the most consummate perfection in the correlated action of the muscles of the hand, arm, and shoulder, not to mention a fine sense of touch. In throwing a stone or spear, and in many other actions, a man must stand firmly on his feet; and this again demands the perfect coadaptation of numerous muscles. To chip a flint into the rudest tool, or to form a barbed spear or hook from a bone, demands the use of a perfect hand; for, as a most capable judge, Mr. Schoolcraft,[199] remarks, the shaping fragments of stone into knives, lances, or arrow-heads, shews "extraordinary ability and long practice." We have evidence of this in primeval men having practised a division of labour; each man did not manufacture his own flint tools or rude pottery; but certain individuals appear to have devoted themselves to such work, no doubt receiving in exchange the produce of the chase. Archaeologists are convinced that an enormous interval of time elapsed before our ancestors thought of grinding chipped flints into smooth tools. A man-like animal who possessed a hand and arm sufficiently perfect to throw a stone with precision or to form a flint into a rude tool, could, it can hardly be doubted, with sufficient practice make almost anything, as far as mechanical skill alone is concerned, which a civilised man can make. The structure of the hand in this respect may be compared with that of the vocal organs, which in the apes are used for uttering various signal-cries, or, as in one species, musical cadences; but in man closely similar vocal organs have become adapted through the inherited effects of use for the utterance of articulate language.

Turning now to the nearest allies of man, and therefore to the best representatives of our early progenitors, we find that the hands in the Quadrumana are constructed on the same general pattern as in us, but are far less perfectly adapted for diversified uses. Their hands do not serve so well as the feet of a dog for locomotion; as may be seen in those monkeys which walk on the outer margins of the palms, or on the backs of their bent fingers, as in the chimpanzee and orang.[200] Their hands, however, are admirably adapted for climbing trees. Monkeys seize thin branches or ropes, with the thumb on one side and the fingers and palm on the other side, in the same manner as we do. They can thus also carry rather large objects, such as the neck of a bottle, to their mouths. Baboons turn over stones and scratch up roots with their hands.

They seize nuts, insects, or other small objects with the thumb in opposition to the fingers, and no doubt they thus extract eggs and the young from the nests of birds. American monkeys beat the wild oranges on the branches until the rind is cracked, and then tear it off with the fingers of the two hands. Other monkeys open mussel-sh.e.l.ls with the two thumbs. With their fingers they pull out thorns and burrs, and hunt for each other's parasites. In a state of nature they break open hard fruits with the aid of stones. They roll down stones or throw them at their enemies; nevertheless, they perform these various actions clumsily, and they are quite unable, as I have myself seen, to throw a stone with precision.

It seems to me far from true that because "objects are grasped clumsily"

by monkeys, "a much less specialised organ of prehension" would have served them[201] as well as their present hands. On the contrary, I see no reason to doubt that a more perfectly constructed hand would have been an advantage to them, provided, and it is important to note this, that their hands had not thus been rendered less well adapted for climbing trees. We may suspect that a perfect hand would have been disadvantageous for climbing; as the most arboreal monkeys in the world, namely Ateles in America and Hylobates in Asia, either have their thumbs much reduced in size and even rudimentary, or their fingers partially coherent, so that their hands are converted into mere grasping-hooks.[202]

As soon as some ancient member in the great series of the Primates came, owing to a change in its manner of procuring subsistence, or to a change in the conditions of its native country, to live somewhat less on trees and more on the ground, its manner of progression would have been modified; and in this case it would have had to become either more strictly quadrupedal or bipedal. Baboons frequent hilly and rocky districts, and only from necessity climb up high trees;[203] and they have acquired almost the gait of a dog. Man alone has become a biped; and we can, I think, partly see how he has come to a.s.sume his erect att.i.tude, which forms one of the most conspicuous differences between him and his nearest allies. Man could not have attained his present dominant position in the world without the use of his hands which are so admirably adapted to act in obedience to his will. As Sir C. Bell[204]

insists "the hand supplies all instruments, and by its correspondence with the intellect gives him universal dominion." But the hands and arms could hardly have become perfect enough to have manufactured weapons, or to have hurled stones and spears with a true aim, as long as they were habitually used for locomotion and for supporting the whole weight of the body, or as long as they were especially well adapted, as previously remarked, for climbing trees. Such rough treatment would also have blunted the sense of touch, on which their delicate use largely depends.

From these causes alone it would have been an advantage to man to have become a biped; but for many actions it is almost necessary that both arms and the whole upper part of the body should be free; and he must for this end stand firmly on his feet. To gain this great advantage, the feet have been rendered flat, and the great toe peculiarly modified, though this has entailed the loss of the power of prehension. It accords with the principle of the division of physiological labour, which prevails throughout the animal kingdom, that as the hands became perfected for prehension, the feet should have become perfected for support and locomotion. With some savages, however, the foot has not altogether lost its prehensile power, as shewn by their manner of climbing trees and of using them in other ways.[205]

If it be an advantage to man to have his hands and arms free and to stand firmly on his feet, of which there can be no doubt from his preeminent success in the battle of life, then I can see no reason why it should not have been advantageous to the progenitors of man to have become more and more erect or bipedal. They would thus have been better able to have defended themselves with stones or clubs, or to have attacked their prey, or otherwise obtained food. The best constructed individuals would in the long run have succeeded best, and have survived in larger numbers. If the gorilla and a few allied forms had become extinct, it might have been argued with great force and apparent truth, that an animal could not have been gradually converted from a quadruped into a biped; as all the individuals in an intermediate condition would have been miserably ill-fitted for progression. But we know (and this is well worthy of reflection) that several kinds of apes are now actually in this intermediate condition; and no one doubts that they are on the whole well adapted for their conditions of life. Thus the gorilla runs with a sidelong shambling gait, but more commonly progresses by resting on its bent hands. The long-armed apes occasionally use their arms like crutches, swinging their bodies forward between them, and some kinds of Hylobates, without having been taught, can walk or run upright with tolerable quickness; yet they move awkwardly, and much less securely than man. We see, in short, with existing monkeys various gradations between a form of progression strictly like that of a quadruped and that of a biped or man.

As the progenitors of man became more and more erect, with their hands and arms more and more modified for prehension and other purposes, with their feet and legs at the same time modified for firm support and progression, endless other changes of structure would have been necessary. The pelvis would have had to be made broader, the spine peculiarly curved and the head fixed in an altered position, and all these changes have been attained by man. Prof. Schaaffhausen[206]

maintains that "the powerful mastoid processes of the human skull are the result of his erect position;" and these processes are absent in the orang, chimpanzee, &c., and are smaller in the gorilla than in man.

Various other structures might here have been specified, which appear connected with man's erect position. It is very difficult to decide how far all these correlated modifications are the result of natural selection, and how far of the inherited effects of the increased use of certain parts, or of the action of one part on another. No doubt these means of change act and react on each other: thus when certain muscles, and the crests of bone to which they are attached, become enlarged by habitual use, this shews that certain fictions are habitually performed and must be serviceable. Hence the individuals which performed them best, would tend to survive in greater numbers.

The free use of the arms and hands, partly the cause and partly the result of man's erect position, appears to have led in an indirect manner to other modifications of structure. The early male progenitors of man were, as previously stated, probably furnished with great canine teeth; but as they gradually acquired the habit of using stones, clubs, or other weapons, for fighting with their enemies, they would have used their jaws and teeth less and less. In this case, the jaws, together with the teeth, would have become reduced in size, as we may feel sure from innumerable a.n.a.logous cases. In a future chapter we shall meet with a closely-parallel case, in the reduction or complete disappearance of the canine teeth in male ruminants, apparently in relation with the development of their horns; and in horses, in relation with their habit of fighting with their incisor teeth and hoofs.

In the adult male anthropomorphous apes, as Rutimeyer,[207] and others have insisted, it is precisely the effect which the jaw-muscles by their great development have produced on the skull, that causes it to differ so greatly in many respects from that of man, and has given to it "a truly frightful physiognomy." Therefore as the jaws and teeth in the progenitors of man gradually become reduced in size, the adult skull would have presented nearly the same characters which it offers in the young of the anthropomorphous apes, and would thus have come to resemble more nearly that of existing man. A great reduction of the canine teeth in the males would almost certainly, as we shall hereafter see, have affected through inheritance the teeth of the females.

As the various mental faculties were gradually developed, the brain would almost certainly have become larger. No one, I presume, doubts that the large size of the brain in man, relatively to his body, in comparison with that of the gorilla or orang, is closely connected with his higher mental powers. We meet with closely a.n.a.logous facts with insects, in which the cerebral ganglia are of extraordinary dimensions in ants; these ganglia in all the Hymenoptera being many times larger than in the less intelligent orders, such as beetles.[208] On the other hand, no one supposes that the intellect of any two animals or of any two men can be accurately gauged by the cubic contents of their skulls.

It is certain that there may be extraordinary mental activity with an extremely small absolute ma.s.s of nervous matter: thus the wonderfully diversified instincts, mental powers, and affections of ants are generally known, yet their cerebral ganglia are not so large as the quarter of a small pin's head. Under this latter point of view, the brain of an ant is one of the most marvellous atoms of matter in the world, perhaps more marvellous than the brain of man.

The belief that there exists in man some close relation between the size of the brain and the development of the intellectual faculties is supported by the comparison of the skulls of savage and civilised races, of ancient and modern people, and by the a.n.a.logy of the whole vertebrate series. Dr. J. Barnard Davis has proved[209] by many careful measurements, that the mean internal capacity of the skull in Europeans is 923 cubic inches; in Americans 875; in Asiatics 871; and in Australians only 819 inches. Professor Broca[210] found that skulls from graves in Paris of the nineteenth century, were larger than those from vaults of the twelfth century, in the proportion of 1484 to 1426; and Prichard is persuaded that the present inhabitants of Britain have "much more capacious brain-cases" than the ancient inhabitants.

Nevertheless it must be admitted that some skulls of very high antiquity, such as the famous one of Neanderthal, are well developed and capacious. With respect to the lower animals, M. E. Lartet,[211] by comparing the crania of tertiary and recent mammals, belonging to the same groups, has come to the remarkable conclusion that the brain is generally larger and the convolutions more complex in the more recent form. On the other hand I have shewn[212] that the brains of domestic rabbits are considerably reduced in bulk, in comparison with those of the wild rabbit or hare; and this may be attributed to their having been closely confined during many generations, so that they have exerted but little their intellect, instincts, senses, and voluntary movements.

The gradually increasing weight of the brain and skull in man must have influenced the development of the supporting spinal column, more especially whilst he was becoming erect. As this change of position was being brought about, the internal pressure of the brain, will, also, have influenced the form of the skull; for many facts shew how easily the skull is thus affected. Ethnologists believe that it is modified by the kind of cradle in which infants sleep. Habitual spasms of the muscles and a cicatrix from a severe burn have permanently modified the facial bones. In young persons whose heads from disease have become fixed either sideways or backwards, one of the eyes has changed its position, and the bones of the skull have been modified; and this apparently results from the brain pressing in a new direction.[213] I have shewn that with long-eared rabbits, even so trifling a cause as the lopping forward of one ear drags forward on that side almost every bone of the skull; so that the bones on the opposite sides no longer strictly correspond. Lastly, if any animal were to increase or diminish much in general size, without any change in its mental powers; or if the mental powers were to be much increased or diminished without any great change in the size of the body; the shape of the skull would almost certainly be altered. I infer this from my observations on domestic rabbits, some kinds of which have become very much larger than the wild animal, whilst others have retained nearly the same size, but in both cases the brain has been much reduced relatively to the size of the body. Now I was at first much surprised by finding that in all these rabbits the skull had become elongated or dolichocephalic; for instance, of two skulls of nearly equal breadth, the one from a wild rabbit and the other from a large domestic kind, the former was only 315 and the latter 43 inches in length.[214] One of the most marked distinctions in different races of man is that the skull in some is elongated, and in others rounded; and here the explanation suggested by the case of the rabbits may partially hold good; for Welcker finds that short "men incline more to brachycephaly, and tall men to dolichocephaly;"[215] and tall men may be compared with the larger and longer-bodied rabbits, all of which have elongated skulls, or are dolichocephalic.

From these several facts we can to a certain extent understand the means through which the great size and more or less rounded form of the skull has been acquired by man; and these are characters eminently distinctive of him in comparison with the lower animals.

Another most conspicuous difference between man and the lower animals is the nakedness of his skin. Whales and dolphins (Cetacea), dugongs (Sirenia) and the hippopotamus are naked; and this may be advantageous to them for gliding through the water; nor would it be injurious to them from the loss of warmth, as the species which inhabit the colder regions are protected by a thick layer of blubber, serving the same purpose as the fur of seals and otters. Elephants and rhinoceroses are almost hairless; and as certain extinct species which formerly lived under an arctic climate were covered with long wool or hair, it would almost appear as if the existing species of both genera had lost their hairy covering from exposure to heat. This appears the more probable, as the elephants in India which live on elevated and cool districts are more hairy[216] than those on the lowlands. May we then infer that man became divested of hair from having aboriginally inhabited some tropical land?

The fact of the hair being chiefly retained in the male s.e.x on the chest and face, and in both s.e.xes at the junction of all four limbs with the trunk, favours this inference, a.s.suming that the hair was lost before man became erect; for the parts which now retain most hair would then have been most protected from the heat of the sun. The crown of the head, however, offers a curious exception, for at all times it must have been one of the most exposed parts, yet it is thickly clothed with hair.

In this respect man agrees with the great majority of quadrupeds, which generally have their upper and exposed surfaces more thickly clothed than the lower surface. Nevertheless, the fact that the other members of the order of Primates, to which man belongs, although inhabiting various hot regions, are well clothed with hair, generally thickest on the upper surface,[217] is strongly opposed to the supposition that man became naked through the action of the sun. I am inclined to believe, as we shall see under s.e.xual selection, that man, or rather primarily woman, became divested of hair for ornamental purposes; and according to this belief it is not surprising that man should differ so greatly in hairiness from all his lower brethren, for characters gained through s.e.xual selection often differ in closely-related forms to an extraordinary degree.

According to a popular impression, the absence of a tail is eminently distinctive of man; but as those apes which come nearest to man are dest.i.tute of this organ, its disappearance does not especially concern us. Nevertheless it may be well to own that no explanation, as far as I am aware, has ever been given of the loss of the tail by certain apes and man. Its loss, however, is not surprising, for it sometimes differs remarkably in length in species of the same genera: thus in some species of Macacus the tail is longer than the whole body, consisting of twenty-four vertebrae; in others it consists of a scarcely visible stump, containing only three or four vertebrae. In some kinds of baboons there are twenty-five, whilst in the mandrill there are ten very small stunted caudal vertebrae, or, according to Cuvier,[218] sometimes only five. This great diversity in the structure and length of the tail in animals belonging to the same genera, and following nearly the same habits of life, renders it probable that the tail is not of much importance to them; and if so, we might have expected that it would sometimes have become more or less rudimentary, in accordance with what we incessantly see with other structures. The tail almost always tapers towards the end whether it be long or short; and this, I presume, results from the atrophy, through disuse, of the terminal muscles together with their arteries and nerves, leading to the atrophy of the terminal bones. With respect to the os coccyx, which in man and the higher apes manifestly consists of the few basal and tapering segments of an ordinary tail, I have heard it asked how could these have become completely embedded within the body; but there is no difficulty in this respect, for in many monkeys the basal segments of the true tail are thus embedded. For instance, Mr. Murie informs me that in the skeleton of a not full-grown _Macacus inornatus_, he counted nine or ten caudal vertebrae, which altogether were only 18 inch in length. Of these the three basal ones appeared to have been embedded; the remainder forming the free part of the tail, which was only one inch in length, and half an inch in diameter. Here, then, the three embedded caudal vertebrae plainly correspond with the four coalesced vertebrae of the human os coccyx.

I have now endeavoured to shew that some of the most distinctive characters of man have in all probability been acquired, either directly, or more commonly indirectly, through natural selection. We should bear in mind that modifications in structure or const.i.tution, which are of no service to an organism in adapting it to its habits of life, to the food which it consumes, or pa.s.sively to the surrounding conditions, cannot have been thus acquired. We must not, however, be too confident in deciding what modifications are of service to each being: we should remember how little we know about the use of many parts, or what changes in the blood or tissues may serve to fit an organism for a new climate or some new kind of food. Nor must we forget the principle of correlation, by which, as Isidore Geoffroy has shewn in the case of man, many fit-range deviations of structure are tied together.

Independently of correlation, a change in one part often leads through the increased or decreased use of other parts, to other changes of a quite unexpected nature. It is also well to reflect on such facts, as the wonderful growth of galls on plants caused by the poison of an insect, and on the remarkable changes of colour in the plumage of parrots when fed on certain fishes, or inoculated with the poison of toads;[219] for we can thus see that the fluids of the system, if altered for some special purpose, might induce other strange changes. We should especially bear in mind that modifications acquired and continually used during past ages for some useful purpose would probably become firmly fixed and might be long inherited.

Thus a very large yet undefined extension may safely be given to the direct and indirect results of natural selection; but I now admit, after reading the essay by Nageli on plants, and the remarks by various authors with respect to animals, more especially those recently made by Professor Broca, that in the earlier editions of my 'Origin of Species'

I probably attributed too much to the action of natural selection or the survival of the fittest. I have altered the fifth edition of the Origin so as to confine my remarks to adaptive changes of structure. I had not formerly sufficiently considered the existence of many structures which appear to be, as far as we can judge, neither beneficial nor injurious; and this I believe to be one of the greatest oversights as yet detected in my work. I may be permitted to say as some excuse, that I had two distinct objects in view, firstly, to shew that species had not been separately created, and secondly, that natural selection had been the chief agent of change, though largely aided by the inherited effects of habit, and slightly by the direct action of the surrounding conditions.

Nevertheless I was not able to annul the influence of my former belief, then widely prevalent, that each species had been purposely created; and this led to my tacitly a.s.suming that every detail of structure, excepting rudiments, was of some special, though unrecognised, service.

Any one with this a.s.sumption in his mind would naturally extend the action of natural selection, either during past or present times, too far. Some of those who admit the principle of evolution, but reject natural selection, seem to forget, when criticising my book, that I had the above two objects in view; hence if I have erred in giving to natural selection great power, which I am far from admitting, or in having exaggerated its power, which is in itself probable, I have at least, as I hope, done good service in aiding to overthrow the dogma of separate creations.

That all organic beings, including man, present many modifications of structure which are of no service to them at present, nor have been formerly, is, as I can now see, probable. We know not what produces the numberless slight differences between the individuals of each species, for reversion only carries the problem a few steps backwards; but each peculiarity must have had its own efficient cause. If these causes, whatever they may be, were to act more uniformly and energetically during a lengthened period (and no reason can be a.s.signed why this should not sometimes occur), the result would probably be not mere slight individual differences, but well-marked, constant modifications.

Modifications which are in no way beneficial cannot have been kept uniform through natural selection, though any which were injurious would have been thus eliminated. Uniformity of character would, however, naturally follow from, the a.s.sumed uniformity of the exciting causes, and likewise from the free intercrossing of many individuals. The same organism might acquire in this manner during successive periods successive modifications, and these would be transmitted in a nearly uniform state as long as the exciting causes remained the same and there was free intercrossing. With respect to the exciting causes we can only say, as when speaking of so-called spontaneous variations, that they relate much more closely to the const.i.tution of the varying organism, than to the nature of the conditions to which it has been subjected.

_Conclusion._-In this chapter we have seen that as man at the present day is liable, like every other animal, to multiform individual differences or slight variations, so no doubt were the early progenitors of man; the variations being then as now induced by the same general causes, and governed by the same general and complex laws. As all animals tend to multiply beyond their means of subsistence, so it must have been with the progenitors of man; and this will inevitably have led to a struggle for existence and to natural selection. This latter process will have been greatly aided by the inherited effects of the increased use of parts; these two processes incessantly reacting on each other. It appears, also, as we shall hereafter see, that various unimportant characters have been acquired by man through s.e.xual selection. An unexplained residuum of change, perhaps a large one, must be left to the a.s.sumed uniform action of those unknown agencies, which occasionally induce strongly-marked and abrupt deviations of structure in our domestic productions.

Judging from the habits of savages and of the greater number of the Quadrumana, primeval men, and even the ape-like progenitors of man, probably lived in society. With strictly social animals, natural selection sometimes acts indirectly on the individual, through the preservation of variations which are beneficial only to the community. A community including a large number of well-endowed individuals increases in number and is victorious over other and less well-endowed communities; although each separate member may gain no advantage over the other members of the same community. With a.s.sociated insects many remarkable structures, which are of little or no service to the individual or its own offspring, such as the pollen-collecting apparatus, or the sting of the worker-bee, or the great jaws of soldier-ants, have been thus acquired. With the higher social animals, I am not aware that any structure has been modified solely for the good of the community, though some are of secondary service to it. For instance, the horns of ruminants and the great canine teeth of baboons appear to have been acquired by the males as weapons for s.e.xual strife, but they are used in defence of the herd or troop. In regard to certain mental faculties the case, as we shall see in the following chapter, is wholly different; for these faculties have been chiefly, or even exclusively, gained for the benefit of the community; the individuals composing the community being at the same time indirectly benefited.

It has often been objected to such views as the foregoing, that man is one of the most helpless and defenceless creatures in the world; and that during his early and less well-developed condition he would have been still more helpless. The Duke of Argyll, for instance, insists[220]

that "the human frame has diverged from the structure of brutes, in the direction of greater physical helplessness and weakness. That is to say, it is a divergence which of all others it is most impossible to ascribe to mere natural selection." He adduces the naked and unprotected state of the body, the absence of great teeth or claws for defence, the little strength of man, his small speed in running, and his slight power of smell, by which to discover food or to avoid danger. To these deficiencies there might have been added the still more serious loss of the power of quickly climbing trees, so as to escape from enemies.

Seeing that the unclothed Fuegians can exist under their wretched climate, the loss of hair would not have been a great injury to primeval man, if he inhabited a warm country. When we compare defenceless man with the apes, many of which are provided with formidable canine teeth, we must remember that these in their fully-developed condition are possessed by the males alone, being chiefly used by them for fighting with their rivals; yet the females which are not thus provided, are able to survive.

In regard to bodily size or strength, we do not know whether man is descended from some comparatively small species, like the chimpanzee, or from one as powerful as the gorilla; and, therefore, we cannot say whether man has become larger and stronger, or smaller and weaker, in comparison with his progenitors. We should, however, bear in mind that an animal possessing great size, strength, and ferocity, and which, like the gorilla, could defend itself from all enemies, would probably, though not necessarily, have failed to become social; and this would most effectually have checked the acquirement by man of his higher mental qualities, such as sympathy and the love of his fellow-creatures.

Hence it might have been an immense advantage to man to have sprung from some comparatively weak creature.