EVOLUTION.

Evening Star, Issue 21966, 28 February 1935, Page 13

EVOLUTION.

TO THE EDITOR. Sir,—lt is necessary to keep in view the exact issue between Mr Braid and myself, as at present existing. The origin was in the meaning of the 'word simian as used by Elliot Smith as quoted by me, and we must strictly bear in mind that he is a modern scientist, using the language of modern science, and explaining his attitude to ■■ the modern position of science regarding the ancestry of man. In that ■ connotation only is the word simian to bo understood. There is .bo evading . that fact. Now, dictionaries give aU the various usages of a word in its various meanings, and I have no desire to dispute that the words simian, ape. and monkey have been or are used with various meanings. But the point at issue is most definitely this—the specific , meanings of those words as. used in modern science/ Any other meaning is i ~ • absolutely irrelevant. The. dictionaries give the specific meaning clearly enough, and there is no excuse for anyone being confused over the matter. Even in'the definition given by Mr Braid ./this evening we have, relating to monkey, “ a name used in its wider sense to include all the quadrumana except the' lemurs and their allies, but in a more restricted sense designating the long-tailed members of the order as distinguished from the apes and baboons. ■ Just note the more “restricted” sense of the meaning of monkey ; it does not include the _ “ apes. The Shorter Oxford English Dictionary. 1933, gives the same “restricted’ meaning. I previously gave that' dictionary’s “ specific ” meaning for ape as applying to the “ simind® ” anihro- ‘ poids. That dictionary also gives the meaning of “ simian ”.as an adjective, in the sense with which Elliot Smith used it—that apes and man descended - from a common “simian” ancestor. As an adjective, the dictionary says, " 1 Characteristic of apes; resembling ’ that pf apes; apelike. 2 Of or belonging. to, comprising or consisting of, the apes or Sinn®.” There is no mistaking this meaning as used in science; the whole point at issue is, what in “ fact ” is the teaching of modern evolutionary • science. Mr Braid gives a definite quotation, in quotation marks, which he - says is the dictionary definition of monkey, and later says that he gets his information from the Concise Oxford Dictionary. His quotation begins, ‘ n monkey is a female ape. . . Now, -■ I cannot find any such quotation, and if it is there. I ask Mr Braid to specifically give the heading and on what page o£ that dictionary his quotation is to be found. The real fact of the matter is that Mr Braid is so ignorant of the subject that he cannot even read the dictionary correctly. Either that or he is deliber- ■ ately distorting what he does read. Mr Braid said in his letter of 23rd that I did not seem to know that “ an ape is a female monkey,” but now in his letter of 26th he says the dictionary gives this: “A monkey is a female ape!” Yet immediately after quoting his definition he says “ So that according to th« dictionary an ape is a female mon- , -key,” reiterating his former statement, which is not what he says the dictionary does say. Now, just what does he wish . to say? An ape is a female monkey, or a monkey is a female ape? The one is ■ a totally" different statement from the ' other. Upon whichever he decides he is hopelessly “up a tree.” But regarding correctly reading the dictionary. The line along which Mr Braid has so blandly strayed is in taking the hypothetical etymological sources for the actual meaning. Thus in the Shorter, Oxford English Dictionary it says that monkey.is "of “obscure ” origin, “ possibly ” middle low German; diminutive of romantic “ mouna,” which is a “ hypo T thetical etymological form” meaning female ape, etc. Skeat’s Etymological Dictionary of the English Language savs that monkey is “ corrupted ” from old Italian “ mona,” and “mona ” in Portuguese means a “she monkey.” So itresolves into this: that the word meaning a “ female ape ” is only the “ hypothetical etymological form ” of which monkey is a more or less “ corrupted” word. After giving this “ hypothetical ” derivation the dictionary then proceeds to give tho various meanings of the- word monkey itself,

among which is the restricted and specific meaning which “ excludes ” the anthropoid apes, the meaning in which it is used by science. Mr Braid asks how “ simian ” can be a general term unless the term ape is a general term itself. But do not forget that I said simian referred to the “ simiidae ” family of apes, which contains three members —the gorilla, orang outaii; and chimpanzee. So ape, as 1 used it, is a general term, general of the tlirce member? of the simiidae family. That is the meaning of “ simian ” as used by Elliot Smith and modern science. It is not for Mr Braid to force his misreading of the dictionary and his ignorance of what science teaches in “fact” upon your readers; it is for him to now confess hi? utter defeat and confusion. Mr Braid is a splendid example of the Fundamentalist antievolutionist and the lengths to which they go to maintain their position.—l am, etc, Phokaxum Vulgus, February 28.