How to Tell Your Friends from the Apes. Will Cuppy
still mourn for “Outlines of Comparative Physiology.” There’s a title that has everything: grace, sparkling wit, scientific significance and as much sex appeal as you can bring to it. Talk about romance!
Other titles were dropped for various reasons. You may think that people will let you call your own book “Notes on the Larger Fauna of the Strait of Magellan, Western Patagonia and Tierra del Fuego.” Well, they won’t! And I can see now that “Is the Horse Doomed?” was no name for a zoölogical work aiming to deal with practically all of our dumb brothers. Besides, we all know that the Horse is doomed. Why keep rubbing it in?
Things went on like that most of the summer, until one day – that terrifically hot day – something seemed to snap, and I knew that I had been writing “How Dante Became the World’s Most Famous Bookend.” Since then I have agreed to a few slight changes in the wording.
Certain persons have asked me whether the title as it now appears is a steal from “How to Tell the Birds from the Flowers,” by Robert Williams Wood, a sterling little volume in verse and pictures published in 1917 and still going strong. To this somewhat tactless inquiry I have decided to answer yes. Why argue the point?
The truth is that I have long regarded Mr. Wood’s book as a step in the right direction. We need more and yet more of these how-to-tell books, for isn’t it high time that we learned to tell a few things apart in this topsy-turvy old world? Let’s have more light on the subject, then. Let’s start right now and see who can tell the most things apart. In that way we may get somewhere.
Now about my central problem. Ninety per cent of the adult humans examined by me stated that they had never found any difficulty in telling their friends from the Apes. I wonder if some of these good people aren’t kidding themselves? The other ten per cent refused either to face the facts or to be pinned down about buying the book. In several instances I got the distinct impression that I was dealing with Gibbons.
I grant you there are plenty of old-fashioned and pretty ineffective ways to tell one’s friends from the Apes. What could be simpler, for instance, when you are at the Zoo? The Apes are in cages.
Yes, but when you are not at the Zoo, what then?
As for my style, as represented in my brief and all-of-a-piece biographies, an acquaintance wishes to know if I intend to go on writing in chunks for the rest of my life. That is a matter I have not yet decided. I may, and I may not. How on earth does one know whether or not one is going to go on writing in chunks?
Nor must I omit the usual acknowledgments. During my labors I found time for my first intensive study of Aristotle, whose “History of Animals” provided me with a footnote or two. The more one peruses this author, and ponders upon him, the more one realizes the wide range, the almost universal scope of his misinformation. I cannot help thinking that is why his pupil, Alexander the Great, was so simple in some respects. You know what the Intelligence Tests showed during the War; and isn’t that the answer to everything, when you come right down to it? I fancy that conditions in Ancient Greece weren’t a whole lot different.
Fortunately, there are others. Elsewhere in this volume I have confessed my not inconsiderable indebtedness to Isabel Paterson. From my frequent debates with her about the animals, I gathered whatever in these little sketches may prove of lasting worth. A reviewer of “How to Be a Hermit” said that he had long regarded the undersigned as a figment of Isabel Paterson’s imagination. I could wish that this legend might persist, for I know of nobody at all of whose imagination I should feel prouder and more signally honored to be a figment.
In closing I would say that if I have succeeded, however imperfectly, in my efforts to amuse, if I have served to while away an idle hour, if I have caught within these pages aught of profit or of pleasure – in short, if I have written the best book of the season, I shall be very much surprised.
MEMOIRS OF THE JUKES FAMILY, OR WHERE WE COME IN
The Java Man • The Peking Man • The Piltdown Man • The Heidelberg Man • The Neanderthal Man • The Cro-Magnon Man • The Modern Man
THE JAVA MAN
THE JAVA MAN lived in Java 500,000 or 1,000,000 or 2,000,000 years ago1 and was lower than we are. He was Lower Pleistocene and Lower Quarternary and knock-kneed. He was called Pithecanthropus (“Ape-Man”) erectus because he walked with a slight stoop. The Java Man consisted of a calvarium, three teeth and a femur belonging to himself or two other Ape-Men. Professor Dubois made him a face which proves that he was dolichocephalic or long-headed instead of brachycephalic or square-headed and that he was 5 feet 6½ inches high and that Barnum was right. The Java Man was more Manlike than Apelike and more Apelike than Manlike. He had immense supraorbital ridges of solid bone and was conscious in spots. Does that remind you of any one? 2 His Broca’s area was low. He could say that the evenings were drawing in and times were hard and his feet hurt. The spiritual life of the Java Man was low because he was only a beginner. He was just a child at heart and was perfectly satisfied with his polygamy, polygyny, polyandry, endogamy, exogamy, totemism, and nymphomania. How he ever became extinct is beyond me. The Java Man has been called the Missing Link by those who should know.
1 Or 250,000 or 750,000.
2 Sir Arthur Keith says that Pithecanthropus erectus was human in everything but the brain. Well, what did he expect?
THE PEKING MAN
THE PEKING MAN shows that people were living in Asia long long ago as most of us knew already. He was discovered near Peking or Peiping and was named Sinanthropus pekinensis to keep certain persons from calling him Peiping Tom. Sin means China although the Chinese are no worse than other foreigners. The glabella was prominent so he was probably a young male.1 The brain shows that the calvarium or brain-case was good. The skull was in perfect condition because the Peking Man took better care of his skull than some of us. He had begun to think or whatever the Chinese do. The prefrontal region resembles that found in some parts of the Middle West. The right horizontal ramus shows a tendency to do everything backwards. The Peking Man is lovable because he left no culture. He knew nothing about the Ming Dynasty and the Ch’ing Dynasty and the Sung Dynasty and he wrote no short poems stating that he got drunk and went out in a canoe and fell in. He had no imports and exports but he had fauna and flora.2 The Peking Man was fond of over-population. We do not know whether he was religious or promiscuous or both. He did not have love as we understand it because he had no gin.
1 Or a young female.
2 He had the Catalpa, the Soy Bean, the Mongolian Mammoth, the Chinese Ostrich, the Yak, and the Carp. He may have had Bats.
THE PILTDOWN MAN
THE