With regard to the rank of man in zoological classification, I fear I
have not made myself intelligible. I never meant to adopt Owen's or any
other such views, but only to point out that from _one_ point of view he
was right. I hold that a distinct _family_ for man, as Huxley allows, is
all that can possibly be given him zoologically. But at the same time,
if my theory is true--that while the animals which surrounded him have
been undergoing modification in _all_ parts of their bodies to a
_generic_ or even _family_ degree of difference, he has been changing
almost wholly in the brain and head--then, in geological antiquity the
_species_ of man may be as old as many mammalian _families_, and the
origin of the _family_ man may date back to a period when some of the
orders first originated.
As to the theory of Natural Selection itself, I shall always maintain it
to be actually yours and yours only. You had worked it out in details I
had never thought of, years before I had a ray of light on the subject,
and my paper would never have convinced anybody or been noticed as more
than an ingenious speculation, whereas your book has revolutionised the
study of natural history, and carried away captive the best men of the
present age.
Pages:
229
230
231
232
233
234
235
236
237
238
239
240
241
242
243
244
245
246
247
248
249
250
251
252
253