plainly as he recognized the likeness of the higher
simian and the human types, does not seem to have entertained the
thought of accounting for this similarity by common descent. It
satisfied his mind to consider it as belonging to the system of nature,
as indeed remained the case with a greater anatomist of the following
century, Richard Owen. The present drawing, which under the authority of
Linnaeus shows an anthropomorphic series from which the normal type of
man, the _Homo sapiens_, is conspicuously absent, brings zoological
similarity into view without suggesting kinship to account for it. There
are few ideas more ingrained in ancient and low civilization than that
of relationship by descent between the lower animals and man. Savage and
barbaric religions recognize it, and the mythology of the world has
hardly a more universal theme. But in educated Europe such ideas had
long been superseded by the influence of theology and philosophy, with
which they seemed too incompatible. In the 19th century, however,
Lamarck's theory of the development of new species by habit and
circumstance led through Wallace and Darwin to the doctrines of the
hereditary transmission of acquired characters, the survival of the
fittest, and natural selection. Thenceforward it was impossible to
exclude a theory of descent of man from ancestral beings whom zoological
similarity connects also, though by lines of descent not at all clearly
defined, with ancestors of the anthropomorphic apes. In one form or
another such a theory of human descent has in our time become part of an
accepted framework of zoology, if not as a demonstrable truth, at any
rate as a working hypothesis which has no effective rival.

The new development from Linnaeus's zoological scheme which has thus
ensued appears in Huxley's diagram of simian and human skeletons (fig.
2, (a) gibbon; (b) orang; (c) chimpanzee; (d) gorilla; (e) man).
Evidently suggested by the Linnean picture, this is brought up to the
modern level of zoology, and continued on to man, forming an
introduction to his zoological history hardly to be surpassed. Some of
the main points it illustrates may be briefly stated here, the reader
being referred for further information to Huxley's _Essays_. In tracing
the osteological characters of apes and man through this series, the
general system of the skeletons, and the close correspondence in number
and arrangement of vertebrae and ribs, as well as in the teeth,