EVOLUTION
666
EVOLUTION
Skill (190S)
human, and have given rise to renewed interest
through the valuable discoveries made in Krapina.
The Neandertal skull itself serves as a type which,
owing to the low, receding forehead and the strongly
developed supra-orliital ridges, appears to be very
primitive, though no one knows the actual geological
conditions of the place where it was originally deposi-
ted. We pass over the fact that twenty scientists
have expressed twelve tlifferent opinions on this mys-
terious crHiiium, and confine oiu'selves to the latest
opinion of Scliwall;)e, who says that the Neandertal
cranium exhibits forms which are never found in either
a normal or a pathologically altered Homo sapiens,
whetlier Negro, European, or Australian, and yet at
the same time the skull does exhibit human charac-
teristics. In a word, the Neandertal skull does not
belong to any
variety of Homo
sapiens. Kohl-
brugge very apt-
ly compares
Schwalbe's hy-
pothesis to an
upturned pyra-
mid balancing
on a fine point,
since a single
Australian or
Negroid skull
which may be
found to agree
with the Nean-
dertal skull suf-
fices to over-
throw the hypothesis. Such a skull has not as yet
been found, but there are other factors which suf-
fice to shake Schwalbe's hypothesis. These have ref-
erence to the other diluvial bone remains of Homo
primigenius, amongst others to the petrified Gibraltar
skull, to two molar teeth from the Tauliach cave, to
the two fragments of a skull from the mammoth caves
of Spy, and the jawbones from La Naulette, Schipka,
Ochos, ami. finally, to considerable remains of bones,
such as fragments of skulls, lower jawbones, pelvic
bones, thigh and shin bones, from a cave near Krapina
in Croatia. To these must be added the " Moustier
skull" which was dug up in August, 1908, in V(^zere-
tal (Dordogne). All these fragments possess fairly
uniform characteristics. Especially worthy of note
are, above all, the cranium with its prominent supra-
orbital ridges and receding forehead. These quali-
ties, however, are not infrequently found in men of the
present day. Australians exhibit here and there even
the genuine supra-orbital ridges (Gorjanowic-Kram-
berger). It cannot be clearly decided whether we are
dealing with purely individual characteristics or with
peculiarities which would justify us in classifying the
Krapina fragments as belonging to a special race.
But this much is clear, that the formation of the skull
and the degree of civilization of that race are quite
sullicieiit to permit of our designating Homo primi-
grniiix not as a species of itself, but merely as a local
sub-division of the Homo sapiens. The Galley Hill
skull, from England, which is still older than the
Krapina bones, points to the same conclusion and cor-
responds with the more recent skulls of post-diluvial
man. Hence, to sum up, we may affirm that we are
acquainted with no records of Tertiary man, that the
most ancient remains of the Quaternary belong to the
Galley Hill man, whose skull worthily represents
Homo sapiens. The same is to be said of the oldest
traces of civilization as yet known to us.
PaUrontology, therefore, can assert nothing what- ever of a development of the body of man from the animal. It may be added that Haeckel's curious " Progonotaxis", or genealogy of man, is a pure fiction. It consists of thirty stages, beginning with the " mon-
ers" and ending with homo loquax. The first fifteen
stages have no fossil representatives. As to the rest,
we may concede that many of these groups actually
exist, but we do not see a single argument of any
probability for Haeckel's assertion that these groups
are genetically related. As to the age of the human
species, no assertion can be made with any degree of
certainty; thus far there are no indications whatever
that would justify an estimate of more than 10,000
years. Still less are we enabled to say anything defi-
nite as to the probable age of life. The numbers given
by different authors vary between twenty-four and
upwards of one hundred million years. De Vries's
calculation is of especial interest because it is based on
his (Enothera studies. Mainly to show the superiority
of the mutation theory to the selection theory, de
Vries assumes that the primrose contains 0000 charac-
teristics, and that a "mutation", or acquisition of a
new character, takes place after everv 4000 years; so
that 4000x6000=24,000,000 ( = Lord Kelvin's average
value) woukl represent the biothronic equation, which
of course consists of unknown variables only, and
rests, moreover, on the unproved assumption that a
mutation consists in the acquisition of a new character
and that such mutations have really occurred.
IV. Thk Morphological Argument. — (1) In Gen- eral. — The groups and sub-groups of the plant and animal world are built up according to the same funda- mental plan of organization. This important fact, on which all classification rests, is said to be explained by the hypothesis that the different groups (e. g. the vertebrates) have been evolved from forms possessing the peculiarities of the type, while the differences are said to have been brought about by modifications (e. g. adaptation to the environment). The original form or type is imagined to be as primitive as possible, while its modification is said to mark progress, so that those organisms which have the simplest structure are said to correspond to the most ancient forms, the more perfect specialized forms being the most recent.
Are these conclusions well founded? — The plain facts are these: (a) Groups of organisms exhibit simi- lar fundamental forms, which, however, (b) show various differences, so that (c) the groups fall into similar divisions with a more or less perfect tlegree of organization. In the first place it is difficult to untler- stand why the lower organized forms should be histori- cally the older. According to the evidence furnished by palirontology, this is in many instances positively false, anil in no case is it demonstrable, while philo- sophically it is only possible in as far as the simple forms actually possess the peculiarities of their de- scendants at least in some latent condition. Sec- ondly, it is hard to see why similarity of structure should prove common origin. As a matter of fact, pala?ontology knows nothing of common primeval forms; on the contrary, it points to panillcl series whose origins are unknown. It is not improbable, moreover, that resemblances of structure and function in nature frequently represent instances of conver- gence, through which widely different organisms as- sume similar modifications of form under similar con- ditions of life. For example, certain species of the asclepiadacaf (Stapelia) , euphorbiaccw (Enpliorbia) , and cactus have, in all probability, acquired their similar fleshy form from the adaptation of leafy forms to the aridity of the locality in which they grew, and only preserved the ilifferent family eluiractcristics in the structure of the flower. The similaritj^ which exists between whales and fishes can be considered merely as an instance of convergence, and no one will assert that the whale has developed from the fish because it happens to be provided with fins. As a matter of fact there arc numberless analogies which no serious stu- dent would ever dream of reducing to a common ori- gin. Take, for example, the cell-<livisioii in plants and animals, the method of fertilization, and other
