period, Man, the wonder and glory of the Universe, proceeded.

Thus we have given to man a pedigree of prodigious length, but not, it may be said, of noble quality. The world, it has often been remarked, appears as if it had long been preparing for the advent of man; and this, in one sense is strictly true, for he owes his birth to a long line of progenitors. If any single link in this chain had never existed, man would not have been exactly what he now is. Unless we wilfully close our eyes, we may, with our present knowledge, approximately recognize our parentage; nor need we feel ashamed of it. The most humble organism is something much higher than the inorganic dust under our feet; and no one with an unbiassed mind can study any living creature, however humble, without being struck with enthusiasm at its marvellous structure and properties.

CHAPTER VII.

ON THE RACES OF MAN.

The Nature and Value of Specific Characters.—Application to the Races of Man.-Arguments in favor of, and opposed to, ranking the Socalled Races of Man as Distinct Species.-Sub-species.-Monogenists and Polygenists.-Convergence of Character.-Numerous Points of Resemblance in Body and Mind between the most Distinct Races of Man.-The State of Man when he first spread over the Earth.—Each Race not descended from a Single Pair.-The Extinction of Races.The Formation of Races.-The Effects of Crossing.-Slight Influence of the Direct Action of the Conditions of Life.-Slight or no Influence of Natural Selection.-Sexual Selection.

It is not my intention here to describe the several socalled races of men; but to inquire what is the value of the differences between them under a classificatory point of view, and how they have originated. In determining whether two or more allied forms ought to be ranked as species or varieties, naturalists are practically guided by the following considerations: namely, the amount of difference between them, and whether such differences relate to few or many points of structure, and whether they are of physiological importance; but more especially whether they are constant. Constancy of character is what is chiefly valued and sought for by naturalists. Whenever it can be shown, or rendered probable, that the forms in question have remained distinct for a long period, this becomes an argument of much weight in favor of treating them as species. Even a slight degree of sterility between

any two forms when first crossed, or in their offspring, is generally considered as a decisive test of their specific distinctness; and their continued persistence without blending within the same area, is usually accepted as sufficient evidence, either of some degree of mutual sterility, or in the case of animals of some repugnance to mutual pairing.

Independently of blending from intercrossing, the complete absence, in a well-investigated region, of varieties linking together any two closely-allied forms, is probably the most important of all the criterions of their specific distinctness; and this is a somewhat different consideration from mere constancy of character, for two forms may be highly variable and yet not yield intermediate varieties. Geographical distribution is often unconsciously and sometimes consciously brought into play; so that forms living in two widely-separated areas, in which most of the other inhabitants are specifically distinct, are themselves usually looked at as distinct; but in truth this affords no aid in distinguishing geographical races from so-called good or true species.

Now let us apply these generally-admitted principles to the races of man, viewing him in the same spirit as a naturalist would any other animal. In regard to the amount of difference between the races, we must make some allowance for our nice powers of discrimination gained by the long habit of observing ourselves. In India, as Elphinstone remarks,' although a newly-arrived European cannot at first distinguish the various native races, yet they soon appear to him extremely dissimilar; and the Hindoo cannot at first perceive any difference between the several European nations. Even the most distinct races of man, with the exception of certain negro

1 'History of India,' 1841, vol. i. p. 323. Father Ripa makes exactly the same remark with respec' to the Chinese.

tribes, are much more like each other in form than would at first be supposed. This is well shown by the French photographs in the Collection Anthropologique du Muséum of the men belonging to various races, the greater number of which, as many persons to whom I have shown them have remarked, might pass for Europeans. Nevertheless, these men if seen alive would undoubtedly appear very distinct, so that we are clearly much influenced in our judgment by the mere color of the skin and hair, by slight differences in the features, and by expression.

There is, however, no doubt that the various races, when carefully compared and measured, differ much from each other—as in the texture of the hair, the relative proportions of all parts of the body,' the capacity of the lungs, the form and capacity of the skull, and even in the convolutions of the brain. But it would be an endless task to specify the numerous points of structural difference. The races differ also in constitution, in acclimatization, and in liability to certain diseases. Their mental characteristics are likewise very distinct; chiefly as it would appear in their emotional, but partly in their intellectual, faculties. Every one who has had the opportunity of comparison, must have been struck with the contrast between the taciturn, even morose, aborigines of South America and the light-hearted, talkative negroes. There is a nearly similar contrast between the Malays and the Papuans,* who live under the same physical conditions,

2 A vast number of measurements of Whites, Blacks, and Indians, are given in the 'Investigations in the Military and Anthropolog. Statistics of American Soldiers,' by B. A. Gould, 1869, pp. 298-358; on the capacity of the lungs, p. 471. See also the numerous and valuable tables, by Dr. Weisbach, from the observations of Dr. Scherzer and Dr. Schwarz, in the 'Reise der Novara: Anthropolog. Theil,' 1867.

3 See, for instance, Mr. Marshall's account of the brain of a Bushwoman, in 'Phil. Transact.' 1864, p. 519.

4 Wallace, 'The Malay Archipelago,' vol. ii. 1869,

p. 178.

and are separated from each other only by a narrow space of sea.

We will first consider the arguments which may be advanced in favor of classing the races of man as distinct species, and then those on the other side. If a naturalist, who had never before seen such beings, were to compare a Negro, Hottentot, Australian, or Mongolian, he would at once perceive that they differed in a multitude of characters, some of slight and some of considerable importance. On inquiry he would find that they were adapted to live under widely-different climates, and that they dif fered somewhat in bodily constitution and mental disposition. If he were then told that hundreds of similar specimens could be brought from the same countries, he would assuredly declare that they were as good species as many to which he had been in the habit of affixing specific names. This conclusion would be greatly strengthened as soon as he had ascertained that these forms had all retained the same character for many centuries; and that negroes, apparently identical with existing negroes, had lived at least 4,000 years ago. He would also hear from

5 With respect to the figures of the famous Egyptian caves of AbouSimbel, M. Pouchet says ('The Plurality of the Human Races,' English translat. 1864, p. 50), that he was far from finding recognizable representations of the dozen or more nations which some authors believe that they can recognize. Even some of the most strongly-marked races cannot be identified with that degree of unanimity which might have been expected from what has been written on the subject. Thus Messrs. Nott and Gliddon ('Types of Mankind,' p. 148) state that Rameses II., or the Great, has features superbly European; whereas Knox, another firm believer in the specific distinction of the races of man ('Races of Man,' 1850, p. 201), speaking of young Memnon (the same person with Rameses II., as I am informed by Mr. Birch) insists in the strongest manner that he is identical in character with the Jews of Antwerp. Again, while looking in the British Museum with two competent judges, officers of the establishment, at the statue of Amunoph III., we agreed that he had a