Richmond dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1884-1903, 1888-09-20
met like fate in 1856. She sailed Janu-
airy 2sd from Liverpool. The Arctic
was wrecked of Jutland in 1860, Octo-
Der 9Th. Many persons saved.
Darwin ana Man.

Darwin ana Man.
TO the Editor of dse Dispatch
do not quite understand remark in
brief editorial on the subject OF eyolu-
ton in your last Sundays issue.
You say: "Now, Brother Sentinci,
do you believe that man descended from
a monkey, or from an ape. or from any
mere animal? No. Darwin teaches no
such doctrine, and you do not. .
think you will see from the extract
below that Darwin does hold, and does
express with Characteristic frankness,
the very view which you disclaim for
him. Ia summing up the conclusions
reached in his long and thorough discus
sion Of the descent of man, he says
(volume2, page 372):
"By considering the embryological
structure of mantle homologies which
he presents 10 the lower animals. the ru-
diments which he retains, and the re-
versions 70 which he is liable-we can
partly recall in imagination the former
condition of our early progenltors, aud
can approximately place them IN their
proper position in the geological series.
:" We thus learn that man is descend
ed from q hairy quadruped, furnished
with tail and pointed ears, proba-
bly, arboreal IN its habits, and an in
habitant Of the Old World. This crea-
ture, if its whole structure had been ex-
amined by "a naturalist, would have been
cassed amongth Quadrumsna as surely
as wonld the common and still more
ancient progenitor OF the Old and New
World monkeys. The Q0adrumana and
/ all the higher mammals are probably
derived from an ancient Marsupial AM
nal and this. through long hne OF
diversified forms, either from some rep
tile-likeor some amphibian-like creature ;
and this again from some tish-lke AMI
NAL.
"In the dim obscurity of the past we
can see that the enrly progenitor OF all
the early vertebrate must have been an
aquatic animal provided with branchiR,
with tho two sexes united IN the same
individual, and with the most important
organs OF the body (such as the brain
and heart imperfectly developed. This
animal seems to have been more like the
larve OF our existing marine Ascidlans
than any other known form"
Thus, if j may presume to condense
Darwin's statement, man is derived from
hairy, monkcy-like quadrumana this
duadrumana and all the other mammals
from n marsupial tor Opossum-like) ami
NAL this marsupial from areptile or am
phibian this reptile or amphibian from
a fish this fish and all other vertebrates
through many changes from low ma
rino form similar to an Ascidlan larva.
Beyond this the statement does not car
ny MS.
Yon see that | am careful neither to
express nor to intimate any opinion
whatever as to the correctness of these
views. | only desired that Darwin's po-
sition should in fairness be accurately
set forth. Respectfully,
It has often been denied for DARWIN
that he ever said that man was descended
from a monkey. We are confident that
every disciple Of his will deny now that
he teaches that man descended from a
monkey, or an ape, or any animal now in
existence. We would only make our
sentence read that DARWIN does not
teach that man descended from a mon
key, or an ape, or any animal now in ez-
isteuce.
The extract quoted by &C. H. W."
does not teach such a doctrine. 1t
would not be necessary partly to recall
"in Imagination the former cOndi-
ton Of oar early progenitOrs" If we
had specimens of them right before
our eyes now. Our progenitor would,
DARWIN says, have been classed with the
Quadrumana. But it would not be
necessary to class it or him with the
ouadrumana il be or it had been sup
posed to be a monkey, or an ape, or an
ourang-outang. His genus would have
been unmistakable. There would, there
fore, he no approximate placing" In
a word, we repeat that, according to our
understanding of DARWIN there is
now no animal in the wide world
such as the progenitor of man is
supposed by him to have been. The
"bioplastic germs were the beginnings
Of all existence. These were so much
alike that they produced the identities
we spoke of -- II man had any such
origin and must have been created
thus. But we stand against all corners
on that point. Man WAS never mon
key, nor a quadrumane of any sort, nor
indeed anything but man. Let not &C.
II. W. imagine that we do not know
how old-fashioned our notions are.