The Descent of Man, and Selection in Relation to Sex

conclusion for granted, and may refer my readers to the admirable treatises of Sir Charles Lyell, Sir John Lubbock, and others. Nor shall I have occasion to do more than to allude to the amount of difference between man and the anthropomorphous apes; for Prof. Huxley, in the opinion of most competent judges, has conclusively shewn that in every visible character man differs less from the higher apes, than these do from the lower members of the same order of Primates. This work contains hardly any original facts in regard to man; but as the conclusions at which I arrived, after drawing up a rough draft, appeared to me interesting, I thought that they might interest others. It has often and confidently been asserted, that man’s origin can never be known: but ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those who know little, and not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science. The conclusion that man is the co-descendant with other species of some ancient, lower, and extinct form, is not in any degree new. Lamarck long ago came to this conclusion, which has lately been maintained by several eminent naturalists and philosophers; for instance, by Wallace, Huxley, Lyell, Vogt, Lubbock, Buchner, Rolle, etc. (1. As the works of the first-named authors are so well known, I need not give the titles; but as those of the latter are less well known in England, I will give them:—‘Sechs Vorlesungen über die Darwin’sche Theorie:’ zweite Auflage, 1868, von Dr L. Buchner; translated into French under the title ‘Conférences sur la Théorie Darwinienne,’ 1869. ‘Der Mensch im Lichte der Darwin’sche Lehre,’ 1865, von Dr. F. Rolle. I will not attempt to give references to all the authors who have taken the same side of the question. Thus G. Canestrini has published (‘Annuario della Soc. d. Nat.…