The Hunt for the Dawn Monkey: Unearthing the Origins of Monkeys, Apes, and Humans

11. Paleoanthropology and Pithecophobia

11 Paleoanthropology and Pithecophobia When it comes to figuring out where we stand with respect to the rest of Earth’s biotic diversity, we humans have always looked at nature through a narcissistic lens. It seems obvious that humans are special. The prevalence of this view comes as no great surprise, given that ours is the only literate, verbally gifted species on the planet. Alternative opinions—if they exist—have never been voiced or written down, at least not by the principals involved. Prior to the Darwinian revolution, organized religions justified the concept that humanity stood apart from all other life forms. According to the Book of Genesis (1:26–28): Then God said, “Let us make man in our image, after our likeness; and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the birds of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps upon the earth.” So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them. And God blessed them, and God said to them, “Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth and subdue it; and have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the air and over every living thing that moves upon the earth.” Generations of early naturalists, aspiring to apply the logic of science to make sense of the world around them, struggled to reconcile the ac277 knowledged superiority and distinctiveness of humanity with an evergrowing body of biological evidence that suggested otherwise. These preDarwinian scholars concocted a broad spectrum of taxonomic solutions, arranged on a scale that equated human uniqueness with different ranks in the zoological hierarchy. The most extreme classifications emphasized the mental and spiritual acumen of their proponents by dividing the diversity of life into three separate kingdoms—the Human, the Animal, and the Vegetable. Richard Owen, a British anatomist and paleontologist whose various claims to fame include coining the term Dinosauria in 1842, adopted a marginally more realistic stance by isolating humans in one of four subclasses of mammals. Georges Cuvier, who shared Owen’s disdain for evolution, segregated humans at a slightly lower taxonomic rank. According to Cuvier’s scheme, which was widely embraced by pre-Darwinian zoologists, humans were the sole representatives of the mammalian order Bimana (meaning “two hands”) while all other primates belonged in a separate order known as Quadrumana (or “four hands,” in recognition of the structure of the primate foot, whose grasping big toe made the entire organ vaguely resemble a human hand). Linnaeus , the father of modern taxonomy, advocated that humans be grouped with apes, monkeys, tarsiers, lemurs, flying lemurs, and bats in the order Primates. However, even the exceptionally inclusive views of Linnaeus did not reflect evolutionary linkages among these species. His classification aimed to organize the natural world on the basis of overall similarity, but for Linnaeus this conveyed nothing in terms of ancestry or descent with modification. Darwin fully recognized the extent to which his theory of evolution upset the cultural and theological apple cart, even if he remained con- flicted about how to express it in terms of a zoological classification. Darwin went out of his way to ridicule the more outrageous schemes seeking to erect high taxonomic barriers between humans and other primates.1 Darwin and his followers readily conceded that humans differed dramatically from other primates in terms of raw intelligence. Thomas Henry Huxley, Darwin’s scientific acolyte and most vocal advocate, recognized this disparity by placing humans in one of three major subdivisions of primates, alongside anthropoids and prosimians.Yet Darwin insisted that such a large taxonomic distinction obscured the close evolutionary affinities of humans and apes.2 After reviewing the anatomical differences between New World monkeys (or platyrrhines) and their Old World (or catarrhine) relatives, Darwin noted: “And as man from a genealogical point of view belongs to the Catarhine [sic] or Old World stock, we must 278 PALEOANTHROPOLOGY AND PITHECOPHOBIA conclude, however much the conclusion may revolt our pride, that our early progenitors would have been properly thus designated.”3 The popular backlash against Darwin is well documented, and it was hardly restricted to puritanical North America. In Victorian England, upon hearing that Darwin and Huxley supported the notion that humans evolved from apelike...