The Descent of Man, Charles Darwin [top 100 books of all time checklist txt] 📗

the brain of a man with that of an orang; the brain of this with that of a chimpanzee; of this with that of a gorilla, and so on of a Hylobates, Semnopithecus, Cynocephalus, Cercopithecus, Macacus, Cebus, Callithrix, Lemur, Stenops, Hapale, we shall not meet with a greater, or even as great a, break in the degree of development of the convolutions, as we find between the brain of a man and that of an orang or chimpanzee.”

To which I reply, firstly, that whether this assertion be true or false, it has nothing whatever to do with the proposition enunciated in ‘Man’s Place in Nature,’ which refers not to the development of the convolutions alone, but to the structure of the whole brain. If Professor Bischoff had taken the trouble to refer to p. 96 of the work he criticises, in fact, he would have found the following passage: “And it is a remarkable circumstance that though, so far as our present knowledge extends, there IS one true structural break in the series of forms of Simian brains, this hiatus does not lie between man and the manlike apes, but between the lower and the lowest Simians, or in other words, between the Old and New World apes and monkeys and the Lemurs. Every Lemur which has yet been examined, in fact, has its cerebellum partially visible from above; and its posterior lobe, with the contained posterior cornu and hippocampus minor, more or less rudimentary. Every marmoset, American monkey, Old World monkey, baboon or manlike ape, on the contrary, has its cerebellum entirely hidden, posteriorly, by the cerebral lobes, and possesses a large posterior cornu with a well-developed hippocampus minor.”

This statement was a strictly accurate account of what was known when it was made; and it does not appear to me to be more than apparently weakened by the subsequent discovery of the relatively small development of the posterior lobes in the Siamang and in the Howling monkey. Notwithstanding the exceptional brevity of the posterior lobes in these two species, no one will pretend that their brains, in the slightest degree, approach those of the Lemurs. And if, instead of putting Hapale out of its natural place, as Professor Bischoff most unaccountably does, we write the series of animals he has chosen to mention as follows: Homo, Pithecus, Troglodytes, Hylobates, Semnopithecus, Cynocephalus, Cercopithecus, Macacus, Cebus, Callithrix, Hapale, Lemur, Stenops, I venture to reaffirm that the great break in this series lies between Hapale and Lemur, and that this break is considerably greater than that between any other two terms of that series. Professor Bischoff ignores the fact that long before he wrote, Gratiolet had suggested the separation of the Lemurs from the other Primates on the very ground of the difference in their cerebral characters; and that Professor Flower had made the following observations in the course of his description of the brain of the Javan Loris: (75. ‘Transactions of the Zoological Society,’ vol. v. 1862.)

“And it is especially remarkable that, in the development of the posterior lobes, there is no approximation to the Lemurine, short hemisphered brain, in those monkeys which are commonly supposed to approach this family in other respects, viz. the lower members of the Platyrrhine group.”

So far as the structure of the adult brain is concerned, then, the very considerable additions to our knowledge, which have been made by the researches of so many investigators, during the past ten years, fully justify the statement which I made in 1863. But it has been said, that, admitting the similarity between the adult brains of man and apes, they are nevertheless, in reality, widely different, because they exhibit fundamental differences in the mode of their development. No one would be more ready than I to admit the force of this argument, if such fundamental differences of development really exist. But I deny that they do exist. On the contrary, there is a fundamental agreement in the development of the brain in men and apes.

Gratiolet originated the statement that there is a fundamental difference in the development of the brains of apes and that of man—consisting in this; that, in the apes, the sulci which first make their appearance are situated on the posterior region of the cerebral hemispheres, while, in the human foetus, the sulci first become visible on the frontal lobes. (76. “Chez tous les singes, les plis posterieurs se developpent les premiers; les plis anterieurs se developpent plus tard, aussi la vertebre occipitale et la parietale sont-elles relativement tres-grandes chez le foetus. L’Homme presente une exception remarquable quant a l’epoque de l’apparition des plis frontaux, qui sont les premiers indiques; mais le developpement general du lobe frontal, envisage seulement par rapport a son volume, suit les memes lois que dans les singes:” Gratiolet, ‘Memoire sur les plis cerebres de l’Homme et des Primateaux,’ p. 39, Tab. iv, fig. 3.)

This general statement is based upon two observations, the one of a Gibbon almost ready to be born, in which the posterior gyri were “well developed,” while those of the frontal lobes were “hardly indicated” (77. Gratiolet’s words are (loc. cit. p. 39): “Dans le foetus dont il s’agit les plis cerebraux posterieurs sont bien developpes, tandis que les plis du lobe frontal sont a peine indiques.” The figure, however (Pl. iv, fig. 3), shews the fissure of Rolando, and one of the frontal sulci plainly enough. Nevertheless, M. Alix, in his ‘Notice sur les travaux anthropologiques de Gratiolet’ (‘Mem. de la Societe d’Anthropologie de Paris,’ 1868, page 32), writes thus: “Gratiolet a eu entre les mains le cerveau d’un foetus de Gibbon, singe eminemment superieur, et tellement rapproche de l’orang, que des naturalistes tres-competents l’ont range parmi les anthropoides. M. Huxley, par exemple, n’hesite pas sur ce point. Eh bien, c’est sur le cerveau d’un foetus de Gibbon que Gratiolet a vu LES CIRCONVOLUTIONS DU LOBE TEMPORO-SPHENOIDAL DEJA DEVELOPPEES LORSQU’IL N’EXISTENT PAS ENCORE DE PLIS SUR LE LOBE FRONTAL. Il etait donc bien autorise a dire que, chez l’homme les circonvolutions apparaissent d’a en w, tandis que chez les singes elles se developpent d’w en a.”), and the other of a human foetus at the 22nd or 23rd week of uterogestation, in which Gratiolet notes that the insula was uncovered, but that nevertheless “des incisures sement de lobe anterieur, une scissure peu profonde indique la separation du lobe occipital, tres-reduit, d’ailleurs des cette epoque. Le reste de la surface cerebrale est encore absolument lisse.”

Three views of this brain are given in Plate II, figs. 1, 2, 3, of the work cited, shewing the upper, lateral and inferior views of the hemispheres, but not the inner view. It is worthy of note that the figure by no means bears out Gratiolet’s description, inasmuch as the fissure (antero- temporal) on the posterior half of the face of the hemisphere is more marked than any of those vaguely indicated in the anterior half. If the figure is correct, it in no way justifies Gratiolet’s conclusion: “Il y a donc entre ces cerveaux [those of a Callithrix and of a Gibbon] et celui du foetus humain une difference fondamental. Chez celui-ci, longtemps avant que les plis temporaux apparaissent, les plis frontaux, ESSAYENT d’exister.”

Since Gratiolet’s time, however, the development of the gyri and sulci of the brain has been made the subject of renewed investigation by Schmidt, Bischoff, Pansch (78. ‘Ueber die typische Anordnung der Furchen und Windungen auf den Grosshirn-Hemispharen des Menschen und der Affen,’ ‘Archiv fur Anthropologie,’ iii. 1868.), and more particularly by Ecker (79. ‘Zur Entwicklungs Geschichte der Furchen und Windungen der Grosshirn- Hemispharen im Foetus des Menschen.’ ‘Archiv fur Anthropologie,’ iii. 1868.), whose work is not only the latest, but by far the most complete, memoir on the subject.

The final results of their inquiries may be summed up as follows:—

1. In the human foetus, the sylvian fissure is formed in the course of the third month of uterogestation. In this, and in the fourth month, the cerebral hemispheres are smooth and rounded (with the exception of the sylvian depression), and they project backwards far beyond the cerebellum.

2. The sulci, properly so called, begin to appear in the interval between the end of the fourth and the beginning of the sixth month of foetal life, but Ecker is careful to point out that, not only the time, but the order, of their appearance is subject to considerable individual variation. In no case, however, are either the frontal or the temporal sulci the earliest.

The first which appears, in fact, lies on the inner face of the hemisphere (whence doubtless Gratiolet, who does not seem to have examined that face in his foetus, overlooked it), and is either the internal perpendicular (occipito-parietal), or the calcarine sulcus, these two being close together and eventually running into one another. As a rule the occipito- parietal is the earlier of the two.

3. At the latter part of this period, another sulcus, the “posterio- parietal,” or “Fissure of Rolando” is developed, and it is followed, in the course of the sixth month, by the other principal sulci of the frontal, parietal, temporal and occipital lobes. There is, however, no clear evidence that one of these constantly appears before the other; and it is remarkable that, in the brain at the period described and figured by Ecker (loc. cit. pp. 212-213, Taf. II, figs. 1, 2, 3, 4), the antero-temporal sulcus (scissure parallele) so characteristic of the ape’s brain, is as well, if not better developed than the fissure of Rolando, and is much more marked than the proper frontal sulci.

Taking the facts as they now stand, it appears to me that the order of the appearance of the sulci and gyri in the foetal human brain is in perfect harmony with the general doctrine of evolution, and with the view that man has been evolved from some ape-like form; though there can be no doubt that form was, in many respects, different from any member of the Primates now living.

Von Baer taught us, half a century ago, that, in the course of their development, allied animals put on at first, the characters of the greater groups to which they belong, and, by degrees, assume those which restrict them within the limits of their family, genus, and species; and he proved, at the same time, that no developmental stage of a higher animal is precisely similar to the adult condition of any lower animal. It is quite correct to say that a frog passes through the condition of a fish, inasmuch as at one period of its life the tadpole has all the characters of a fish, and if it went no further, would have to be grouped among fishes. But it is equally true that a tadpole is very different from any known fish.

In like manner, the brain of a human foetus, at the fifth month, may correctly be said to be, not only the brain of an ape, but that of an Arctopithecine or marmoset-like ape; for its hemispheres, with their great posterior lobster, and with no sulci but the sylvian and the calcarine, present the characteristics found only in the group of the Arctopithecine Primates. But it is equally true, as Gratiolet remarks, that, in its widely open sylvian fissure, it differs from the brain of any actual marmoset. No doubt it would be much more similar to the brain of an advanced foetus of a marmoset. But we know nothing whatever of the development of the brain in the marmosets. In the Platyrrhini proper, the only observation with which I am acquainted is due to Pansch, who found in