EVOLUTION OF MAN

Otago Witness, Issue 3829, 2 August 1927, Page 8

EVOLUTION OF MAN

LECTURE BY DR BENHAM. The glamour of evolution has apparently flung a wide net in Dunedin, for even the most wretched weather conditions were insufficient to daunt a large crowd of people whose minds were set on hearing Dr . Benham lecture on ‘‘The Evolution of Man,” which was the third of the series of lectures instituted by the University Council at the instance of Dr R. Lawsom The Phvsics Lecture room at the Dtago University was packed on Thursday evening, and a -great many people had to content themselves with seats on the floor and in the aisles. Mr J. A Moore, representing the council, introduced the speaker. Dr Benham was greatly assisted in his lecture by a selection of lantern slides with which he illustrated a great

many difficult points. At the outset, the speaker explained that it was his intention to indicate how closely allied in physical structure and from a zoological standpoint were man and the group of primates which included monkeys and large apes. They were, he said, more nearly alike in anatomical features and characteristics than were any groups of animals. It was true that some human beings did not possess the graceful carriage and elegant facial contours of Europeans, but on the other hand, as the lantern dides showed, the chimpanzee uas not nearly so abhorrent m appearance as the gorilla, and he pointed out on he screen a degree of facial resemblance that existed between a negro boy and a■ chimnanzee which were the subjects of one slide. ’ The lecturer then dwelt at some length on the external characters that we common to men and anthropoid apes. Then he pointed out the equally evident d lll ’- enceV such as the habit of walking on the sides of the feet indulged in by lack of speech and the facial features common in simians but foreign in h'» ma beings However, it was as well to ic member that it was not na g™J f o r to walk erect or to talk. He had to oe taught to do both. With man s psychical character, he as a zoologist was not concerned. but all the numerous facial and anatomical resemblances noticeable were of "rcater importance to the zoologist in

assigning animals to their correct groups thnn a few large differences. The speaker next dealt with the skeletons of men and gorillas These were shown side by side on the screen, and the chief differences were commented upon. The gorilla was heavier in the bone than man. and had 13 pairs of ribs to man’s 12, but the general formation was amazingly similar. Moreover, in tie upborn child there were always 13 pairs of ribs. The skulls differed most startlingly. but that was merely a matter of the relative progress of the constituent bones. There was one feature of the human skull, however, which was markedly absent in the gorilla —the chin. The chin was related to the power of speech, which would account for its absence in the gorilla. The screen depicted the longitudinal sections of various skulls, and here again pronounced differences were noticed. The lecturer dealt exhaustively with teeth, which were of paramount importance in the -classification of

mammals. As could be seen, the common features were many. The comparison of the convolutions of human and ape brains were not of great importance, but he would ask his audience to note that the human brain was greater than that of the ane, explaining this by the greater intelligence and complexity of limb movement in men. Whatever organs were studied or whatever physiological comparisons were made, one had to admit that men and apes were very closely related. Indeed, there w’as more difference between apes and monkeys than there was between apes, and certain types of human beings. This, in effect, meant that men and apes had common ancestors, not that men descended from apes. Man still bore in his bodily frame the stamp of his lowly origin. This, continued Dr Benham, brougnt them to the question of what was known of fossilised man. He referred to 15 fossilised remains of men found all over the world, including the Taungo skull, the Boskop skull, the Mauer jaw, the Talbai skull, the Gallilee skull, and the Broken Hill (Rhodesia) skeleton, from which it could be seen that man had roamed the whole world during the Pleistocene period, about 150,000 years ago. Of these fossils the modern ones were known as “ homosopiens.” the earlier as “homo neandertholensis,” which was not now regarded as the ancestor of modern man, for alongside his remains were found others of a modern tyne. Sketches and comments on the various skulls of. Neanderthal man

occupied a long time. The combination >f simian and human characters, was remarked in each case, a study of the various skulls being greatly facilitated by means of slides. The lecturer then dealt with man’s family tree, which was depicted by various means on the screen. One picture showed a tree with various branches in which the descent (or ascent) of man . was clearly demonstrated in geological sequence, showing that although the tree suggested a genealogical relationship between man and the higher primates, it did not include such repulsive creatures as the baboon and the more abhorrent types of simians. The speaker emphasised the fact that none of the schemes of descent illustrated placed either monkeys or apes in the direct line of descent of man. The common ancestor from which the two families originated was neither ape nor monkey, but he had in his skeleton combinations of each.

Dr Benham concluded by saying that it must not be imagined that such a sketchy summary as he had given would persuade anyone not prepared to accept it as the truth. He was not anxious to persuade anyone, nor was it his job, but he would ask them if they could see any reason why they should be ashamed of themselves for having outstripped their uncouth and unseemly cousins in the competition for supremacy. It was a thing to be proud of that man should have so improved himself by the use of his brain and his greater intelligence, raising himself to a level so much beyond the primates. He could not see that the assumption that man’s ancestry could be trac-d back to some lower form of mammal could take away the beauty and poetry of the idea expressed by the writer of the Psalms, who sang: “Thou has made him a little lower than the angels, and has crowned him with glory and honour.”