Ardrey cites as proof for his mutation theory of evolution the fact that few transitional forms of species have ever been found. His reasoning is fallacious. As Simpson points out, there are always many more adapted animals than transitional animals; probability alone would indicate that transition forms should be scarce millions of years after they became extinct.

This is a case of misinterpretation. In his purer speculations, Ardrey demonstrates a wild imagination, but little more. Take for example what he terms the "Ardrey Theory of Galactic Periodicity," an impossible section that 'explains' weather disruptions.

ARDREY, as we have seen, replaces the modern concept that all human behavior is environment-determined, by his territoriality and dominance drives. If, however, we grant that man is derived from a predatory stock of vicious man-apes, and that the one criterion of his culture since has been the ever developing weapon, then we must abandon the view that man is innately good. Instead of seeing civilization as a corrupting force, it must be, if anything, a force that keeps man's savage predatory nature in check.

"Man is a wild species, and every baby born is a wild young thing." Civilization is the force which subdues the wildness of each infant as it matures.

Then will man, the most sophisticated predator the world has ever known, yield to his instincts and gain the dubious distinction of being the first species in history to exterminate itself? Ardrey is not sure. He observes that among social animals survival of the species is a stronger instinct than survival of the individual. But he also notes that in human wars, this tendency manifests itself in intense patriotism and correspondingly intense hatred of one's enemies, generally buttressed by the conviction that God is on our side. As he wryly comments, "God is never so fashionable as during wartime." Because both sides confidently act out of conscience, we may be plunged into another war. And our "genetic affinity for the weapon," now developed to astonishing efficiency, may render it our last war.

These are gloomy conclusions, and at present their foundations have not been anchored in fact. But even should it eventually be proven that Australopithecine was a killer, Ardrey's conclusions do not necessarily follow.

There is much about evolution that is not understood. Ardrey takes the explosive growth of man's brain, occurring in the geologically instantaneous time of about a half-million years, for granted. Many anthropologists from Darwin to Eiseley have been unable to do so. This growth is unprecedented in recent evolutionary history. Why did it occur?

Then, too, we have considerable evidence of man's further somatic evolution since the man-apes: he has grown, his jaw has shrunk, his face become smaller and lower on his head. If man's body can change and his mind expand, there is no reason why the "instinctual bundle" man has inherited from his predatory ancestors must be preserved intact. Ardrey assumes that it will be, though he does not explain why.

There are, of course, cases of beneficial instincts in animals which have become overdeveloped until they operate in harmful ways. Ardrey himself cites the case of the overgrown lion-pride, too large to sustain itself even though its hunting capability is immeasurably increased. He concludes it is an example of an overdeveloped dominance instinct.

This may be the fate of man. His previously valuable predatory instincts may get the better of him. And then, too, certain qualities of the predatory life--aggressiveness, for instance--are still useful to him. On the threshold of space, it would not do for man to lose all his predatory qualities.

Man may indeed destroy himself. But we need not feel that it is a foregone conclusion, or that it is our particular destiny.

No one can know what will happen to the man of the future; we are far from certain about what has happened to the man of the past. All we can say is that Robert Ardrey has presented a stale if intriguing view of man. He has given us some notion of how much man may still have in common with the monkey that so disappointed Mark Twain's Heavenly Father