darwin and modern science-第44节

按键盘上方向键 ← 或 → 可快速上下翻页，按键盘上的 Enter 键可回到本书目录页，按键盘上方向键 ↑ 可回到本页顶部！
————未阅读完？加入书签已便下次继续阅读！


ose　to　the　anthropoid　apes；　these　again　have　as　their　nearest　relatives　the　lower　Old　World　monkeys；　and　their　progenitors　must　be　sought　among　the　less　differentiated　Platyrrhine　monkeys；　whose　most　important　characters　have　been　handed　on　to　the　present　day　New　World　monkeys。　　How　the　different　genera　are　to　be　arranged　within　the　general　scheme　indicated　depends　in　the　main　on　the　classificatory　value　attributed　to　individual　characters。　　This　is　particularly　true　in　regard　to　Pithecanthropus；　which　I　consider　as　the　root　of　a　branch　which　has　sprung　from　the　anthropoid　ape　root　and　has　led　up　to　man；　the　latter　I　have　designated　the　family　of　the　Hominidae。

For　the　rest；　there　are；　as　we　have　said；　various　possible　ways　of　constructing　the　narrower　genealogy　within　the　limits　of　this　branch　including　men　and　apes；　and　these　methods　will　probably　continue　to　change　with　the　accumulation　of　new　facts。　　Haeckel　himself　has　modified　his　genealogical　tree　of　the　Primates　in　certain　details　since　the　publication　of　his　〃Generelle　Morphologie〃　in　1866；　but　its　general　basis　remains　the　same。　　（Haeckel's　latest　genealogical　tree　is　to　be　found　in　his　most　recent　work；　〃Unsere　Ahnenreihe〃。　　Jena；　1908。）　　All　the　special　genealogical　trees　drawn　up　on　the　lines　laid　down　by　Haeckel　and　Darwin　and　that　of　Dubois　may　be　specially　mentionedare　based；　in　general；　on　the　close　relationship　of　monkeys　and　men；　although　they　may　vary　in　detail。　　Various　hypotheses　have　been　formulated　on　these　lines；　with　special　reference　to　the　evolution　of　man。　　〃Pithecanthropus〃　is　regarded　by　some　authorities　as　the　direct　ancestor　of　man；　by　others　as　a　side…　track　failure　in　the　attempt　at　the　evolution　of　man。　　The　problem　of　the　monophyletic　or　polyphyletic　origin　of　the　human　race　has　also　been　much　discussed。　　Sergi　（Sergi　G。　〃Europa〃；　1908。）　inclines　towards　the　assumption　of　a　polyphyletic　origin　of　the　three　main　races　of　man；　the　African　primitive　form　of　which　has　given　rise　also　to　the　gorilla　and　chimpanzee；　the　Asiatic　to　the　Orang；　the　Gibbon；　and　Pithecanthropus。　　Kollmann　regards　existing　human　races　as　derived　from　small　primitive　races　（pigmies）；　and　considers　that　Homo　primigenius　must　have　arisen　in　a　secondary　and　degenerative　manner。

But　this　is　not　the　place；　nor　have　I　the　space　to　criticise　the　various　special　theories　of　descent。　　One；　however；　must　receive　particular　notice。　According　to　Ameghino；　the　South　American　monkeys　（Pitheculites）　from　the　oldest　Tertiary　of　the　Pampas　are　the　forms　from　which　have　arisen　the　existing　American　monkeys　on　the　one　hand；　and　on　the　other；　the　extinct　South　American　Homunculidae；　which　are　also　small　forms。　　From　these　last；　anthropoid　apes　and　man　have；　he　believes；　been　evolved。　　Among　the　progenitors　of　man；　Ameghino　reckons　the　form　discovered　by　him　（Tetraprothomo）；　from　which　a　South　American　primitive　man；　Homo　pampaeus；　might　be　directly　evolved；　while　on　the　other　hand　all　the　lower　Old　World　monkeys　may　have　arisen　from　older　fossil　South　American　forms　（Clenialitidae）；　the　distribution　of　which　may　be　explained　by　the　bridge　formerly　existing　between　South　America　and　Africa；　as　may　be　the　derivation　of　all　existing　human　races　from　Homo　pampaeus。　　（See　Ameghino's　latest　paper；　〃Notas　preliminares　sobre　el　Tetraprothomo　argentinus〃；　etc。　　〃Anales　del　Museo　nacional　de　Buenos　Aires〃；　XVI。　pages　107…242；　1907。）　　The　fossil　forms　discovered　by　Ameghino　deserve　the　most　minute　investigation；　as　does　also　the　fossil　man　from　South　America　of　which　Lehmann…Nitsche　（〃Nouvelles　recherches　sur　la　formation　pampeenne　et　l'homme　fossile　de　la　Republique　Argentine〃。　　〃Rivista　del　Museo　de　la　Plata〃；　T。　XIV。　pages　193…488。）　has　made　a　thorough　study。

It　is　obvious　that；　notwithstanding　the　necessity　for　fitting　man's　line　of　descent　into　the　genealogical　tree　of　the　Primates；　especially　the　apes；　opinions　in　regard　to　it　differ　greatly　in　detail。　　This　could　not　be　otherwise；　since　the　different　Primate　forms；　especially　the　fossil　forms；　are　still　far　from　being　exhaustively　known。　　But　one　thing　remains　certain；the　idea　of　the　close　relationship　between　man　and　monkeys　set　forth　in　Darwin's　〃Descent　of　Man〃。　　Only　those　who　deny　the　many　points　of　agreement；　the　sole　basis　of　classification；　and　thus　of　a　natural　genealogical　tree；　can　look　upon　the　position　of　Darwin　and　Haeckel　as　antiquated；　or　as　standing　on　an　insufficient　foundation。　　For　such　a　genealogical　tree　is　nothing　more　than　a　summarised　representation　of　what　is　known　in　regard　to　the　degree　of　resemblance　between　the　different　forms。

Darwin's　work　in　regard　to　the　descent　of　man　has　not　been　surpassed；　the　more　we　immerse　ourselves　in　the　study　of　the　structural　relationships　between　apes　and　man；　the　more　is　our　path　illumined　by　the　clear　light　radiating　from　him；　and　through　his　calm　and　deliberate　investigation；　based　on　a　mass　of　material　in　the　accumulation　of　which　he　has　never　had　an　equal。　　Darwin's　fame　will　be　bound　up　for　all　time　with　the　unprejudiced　investigation　of　the　question　of　all　questions；　the　descent　of　the　human　race。


VIII。　　CHARLES　DARWIN　AS　AN　ANTHROPOLOGIST。

By　ERNST　HAECKEL。　Professor　of　Zoology　in　the　University　of　Jena。

The　great　advance　that　anthropology　has　made　in　the　second　half　of　the　nineteenth　century　is　due　in　the　first　place；　to　Darwin's　discovery　of　the　origin　of　man。　　No　other　problem　in　the　whole　field　of　research　is　so　momentous　as　that　of　〃Man's　place　in　nature；〃　which　was　justly　described　by　Huxley　（1863）　as　the　most　fundamental　of　all　questions。　　Yet　the　scientific　solution　of　this　problem　was　impossible　until　the　theory　of　descent　had　been　established。

It　is　now　a　hundred　years　since　the　great　French　biologist　Jean　Lamarck　published　his　〃Philosophie　Zoologique〃。　　By　a　remarkable　coincidence　the　year　in　which　that　work　was　issued；　1809；　was　the　year　of　the　birth　of　his　most　distinguished　successor；　Charles　Darwin。　　Lamarck　had　already　recognised　that　the　descent　of　man　from　a　series　of　other　Vertebratesthat　is；　from　a　series　of　Ape…like　Primateswas　essentially　involved　in　the　general　theory　of　transformation　which　he　had　erected　on　a　broad　inductive　basis；　and　he　had　sufficient　penetration　to　detect　the　agencies　that　had　been　at　work　in　the　evolution　of　the　erect　bimanous　man　from　the　arboreal　and　quadrumanous　ape。　　He　had；　however；　few　empirical　arguments　to　advance　in　support　of　his　hypothesis；　and　it　could　not　be　established　until　the　further　development　of　the　biological　sciencesthe　founding　of　comparative　embryology　by　Baer　（1828）　and　of　the　cell…theory　by　Schleiden　and　Schwann　（1838）；　the　advance　of　physiology　under　Johannes　Muller　（1833）；　and　the　enormous　progress　of　palaeontology　and　comparative　anatomy　between　1820　and　1860provided　this　necessary　foundation。　　Darwin　was　the　first　to　coordinate　the　ample　results　of　these　lines　of　research。　　With　no　less　comprehensiveness　than　discrimination　he　consolidated　them　as　a　basis　of　a　modified　theory　of　descent；　and　associated　with　them　his　own　theory　of　natural　selection；　which　we　take　to　be　distinctive　of　〃Darwinism〃　in　the　stricter　sense。　　The　illuminating　truth　of　these　cumulative　arguments　was　so　great　in　every　branch　of　biology　that；　in　spite　of　the　most　vehement　opposition；　the　battle　was　won　within　a　single　decade；　and　Darwin　secured　the　general　admiration　and　recognition　that　had　been　denied　to　his　forerunner；　Lamarck；　up　to　the　hour　of　his　death　（1829）。

Before；　however；　we　consider　the　momentous　influence　that　Darwinism　has　had　in　anthropology；　we　shall　find　it　useful　to　glance　at　its　history　in　the　course　of　the　last　half　century；　and　notice　the　various　theories　that　have　contributed　to　its　advance。　　The　first　attempt　to　give　extensive　expression　to　the　reform　of　biology　by　Darwin's　work　will　be　found　in　my　〃Generelle　Morphologie〃　（1866）　（〃Generelle　Morphologie　der　Organismen〃；　2　vols。；　Berlin；　1866。）　which　was　followed　by　a　more　popular　treatment　of　the　subject　in　my　〃Naturliche　Schopfungsgeschichte　（1868）　（English　translation；　〃The　History　of　Creation〃；　London；　1876。）；　a　compilation　from　the　earlier　work。　　In　the　first　volume　of　the　〃Generelle　Morphologie〃　I　endeavoured　to　show　the　great　importance　of　evolution　in　settling　the　fundamental　questions　of　biological　philosophy；　especially　in　regard　to　comparative　anatomy。　　In　the　second　volume　I　dealt　broadly　with　the　principle　of　evolution；　distinguishing　ontogeny　and　phylogeny　as　its　two　coordinate　main　branches；　and　associating　the　two　in　the　Biogenetic　Law。　　The　Law　may　be　formulated　thus：　〃Ontogeny　（embryology　or　the　development　of　the　individual）　is　a　concise　and　compressed　recapitulation　of　phylogeny　（the　palaeontological　or　genealogical　series）　conditioned　by　laws　of　heredity　and　adaptation。〃　　The　〃Systematic　introduction　to　general　evolution；〃　with　which　the　second　volume　of　the　〃Generelle　Morphologie〃　opens；　was　the　first　attempt　to　draw　up　a　natural　system　of　organisms　（in　harmony　with　the　principles　of　Lamarck　and　Darwin）　in　the　form　of　a　hypothetical　pedigree；　and　was　provisionally　set　forth　in　eight　genealogical　tables。

In　the　nineteenth　chapter　of　the　〃Generelle　Morphologie〃a　part　of　which　has　been　republished；　without　any　alterati