physical structure, and yet
differing so immeasurably in their endowments and capabilities, would
be a fact hard to believe, if it were not manifest to our observation.
The differences are everywhere striking: the resemblances are less
obvious in the fulness of their extent, and they are never
contemplated without wonder by those who, in the study of anatomy and
physiology, are first made aware how near is man in his physical
constitution to the brutes. In all the principles of his internal
structure, in the composition and functions of his parts, man is but
an animal. The lord of the earth, who contemplates the eternal order
of the universe, and aspires to communion with its invisible Maker, is
a being composed of the same materials, and framed on the same
principles, as the creatures which he has tamed to be the servile
instruments of his will, or slays for his daily food. The points of
resemblance are innumerable; they extend to the most recondite
arrangements of that mechanism which maintains instrumentally the
physical life of the body, which brings forward its early development
and admits, after a given period, its decay, and by means of which is
prepared a succession of similar beings destined to perpetuate the
race."

The acknowledgment of man's structural similarity with the
anthropomorphous species nearest approaching him, viz.: the higher or
anthropoid apes, had long before Prichard's day been made by Linnaeus,
who in his _Systema Naturae_ (1735) grouped them together as the highest
order of Mammalia, to which he gave the name of Primates. The
_Amoenitates Academicae_ (vol. vi., Leiden, 1764), published under the
auspices of Linnaeus, contains a remarkable picture which illustrates a
discourse by his disciple Hoppius, and is here reproduced (see Plate,
fig. 1). In this picture, which shows the crudeness of the zoological
notions current in the 18th century as to both men and apes, there are
set in a row four figures: (a) a recognizable orang-utan, sitting and
holding a staff; (b) a chimpanzee, absurdly humanized as to head, hands,
and feet; (c) a hairy woman, with a tail a foot long; (d) another woman,
more completely coated with hair. The great Swedish naturalist was
possibly justified in treating the two latter creatures as quasi-human,
for they seem to be grotesque exaggerations of such tailed and hairy
human beings as really, though rarely, occur, and are apt to be
e