• 


AN EXAMINATION 


OF Tm; 


CHAHACTERISTICS OF GENERA 1lND SPECIES 

AS .1Pl'UC.!UL'6 TO TIIE 

DOCTRINE OF TIIE U~ITY OF THE nmIA.i.'\ RACE. 

lll"' 

JOHX fu\.CIDLL,, D.D. 

CHARLESTON: 
JAYES, WILLI..A.YS & GITSINGER, 
iTE.U( POWER PRESSES, 3 nnoJ...D-STREET. 
)IDCCCLV. 



L~:.;;«· 

University cf T~~.,~;. 
~_ystin, 'rexas 

MONOGR.APH. 


So many advantages are derived from the study of natural history, 
that at the present day it would be almost superfluous to do more than 
briefly allude to a fact, that now seems to be admitted by every intelligent 
mind. The supply of all the temporal wants of man, his food, 
his dress, the conveniences he enjoys, remind him of a number of animals 
and plants, on which he is dependent for his comforts. There are 
others that are injurious to his welfare, and he is compelled to exercise 
his mind_ in warding off the danger which is to be apprehended from 

... 
their' pernicious. influe'nces~ ·:But, apart from the almost necessity thus 
imposed on him in studying the objects of nature, he finds in this employment 
the means of enlarging his mind, of disciplining bis memory, 
and of exalting his conceptions of creative power. The study of nature 
is the study of truth, and he who reads these truths aright is rendered 
wiser, better and happier. He deems no object unworthy of his 
attention that«is calculated to enlarge the field of knowledge, or that 
enables him to penetrate into the mighty plans of the Creator. 

There is another important subject connected with theee investigations. 
-\ The most enlightened, the purest and the best of mankind, regard the 
~ scripture3 as the revelation of God's will to mankind. The book of 
~ nature has been gh·en by the same omniscient power. His word and 
works cannot contradict each other. The former, it is true, was principally 
intended to convey religious truth, and impress on the human 
l1eart the doctrines of salva.tion, but it should be recollected that al


~ though the Bible was not gh~en for the purpose of teaching the sciences, 
~. it cannot consistently with inspiration, stand in opposition to that other· 
J --... record of the wisdom of the Deity that is given in bis works. Hence 

the necessity of availing ourselves of all those facilities which will enable 

us to interpret the Jaws of nature aright. It is the boast of infidelity that, 
<O '~viewed as a narrative, inspired by the Most High, its conceits would be 
·: pitiful and its revelation.'! false, because telescopic astronomy bas ruined 

~ 
651731 



4 


its celestial structure; physics have negatived its cosmic organism, and 
Geology has stultified the fabulous terrestrial mechanism upon which 
its assumptions are based. How then are its crude and puerile hypotheses 
about human creation to be received ?*" Were this true, then 
according to Gliddon, the same. author, "the developments of science 
will have rendered any new translations (of the scriptures) altogether 
supererogatory among the educated who are creating new religions for 
themselves." 

The question then naturally'' arises, how are these bold assertions to 
be met, and to what sources must the human mind apply in order to 
arrive at truth, and thus solve its doubts and strengthen its religious 
faith with confidence and hope 1 Certainly .there is no other .mode accessible 
to man than by studying the book of nature with an unpreju~ 
diced mind, and with all that preparatory knowledge, that careful 
analysis, that patient research and unclouded judgment, which is essential 
in the investigation of so grave a subject. By pursuing this 
plan of study, we will be enabled t~ solve the mystery why men, writing 
on the same subject, have advanced such opposite opinions and pro 
nounced such contradictory decisions. ThEi authors of the "Types of 
Mankind" have, with a positiveness which is seldom found among the 
humble students of nature, pronounced one set·of opinions, whilst the 
greatest naturalists• in the world, Limireus, Blumenba~h, Cuvier, the 
two Humboldts, Owen, Pritchard, Bunsen, Lepsius, and many others, 
have ariived at conclusions directly the reverse. In searching more 
closely into the qualifications of the men who have pronounced these 
opposite opinions, we are not kft in doubt as to the causes why they 
could not arrive at the same conclusions in professing to unfold the 
leaves of the same book of nature. 

Mr. Gliddon candidly informs his readers of the amount of knowledge 
in the sciences, which enabled him toyronounce so positive and 
startling a decision, that the sciences had so utterly demolished the 
"fabulous terrestrial mechanism" of revelation, that a "new translation 
was supererogatory." On page 716, he tells his readers-" My former 
pursuits in moslem lands were remote from natural science, and disqualify 
me from slu~ring the labours of. its votaries," etc. Thus then 
we h:we the admission from l1is own pen and in print, that he is unqualified, 
from a want of knowledge on the subject, to express an opinion 

!n matters of science, and yet the very sciences about which he profes.
ses to know nothing, have (in his opinion) utterly demolished the 

*Nott and Gliddon's Types of :Mankind, p. 165. 
t Do do. do. do. p. 593. 


5 


. whole structure on which christianity is founded. On the other hand 
Professor Owen, who has for a whole life studied the sciences, of which 
Gliddon had not yet read the alphabet, expresses his matured convictions 
in these words :-"Thus in reference both to the unity of the 

. human species, anJ to the fact of man being the latest, as he is the highest 
of all animal forms upon . our planet, the interpretations of God's 
works coincide with what has been revealed to us, as to our origin and 
zoological relations in the world." " Man is the sole species of his genus, 
tile sole representative of his order." In investigating those preparatory 
studies, by which these gentlemen conside1·ed themselv6s qualified 
to pronounce s'Jch opposite opinions, we are forcibly reminded of 
the caution of the poet: 

"A little learning is a dangerous thing, 
Drink deep, or taste not of the Pierian spring ; 
These shallow draughts intoxicate the brain, 
But drinking deeply sobers it again." 


The sciecces in order to be understood must be studied. As there is 
order in all the works of nature, naturalists have for ages past been engaged 
in interpreting her Jaws, and bringing her various productions 
under a systematic arrangement. By thts means the study is simplified. 
By the co-operation of numbers, each working in his favourite 
department, a mass of inte~lectual riches is acquired, which is transmitted 
to their immediate successors, and through them to posterity. 

The natural sciences. embrace all those branches of study connected 
with the investigation of nature in all her departments. Through the 
labours of Linnreus, Cuvier and a host of their successors, the study 
has been simplified by their di\'i.sions of the animal kingdom under 
classes, orders, families, genera, species and varieties. The five classes 
of Cuvier are-L Mammalia. II. A\·es. III.· Reptilia. IV. Amphibia. 
V. Pisces. Other physiologists have modified this arrangement, 
but the above general division of vertebrate<l, red and warm blooded 
animals, is that with which we are more immediately concerned, inasmuch 
as it includes the mam'maiia, the class to . which we shall generally 
refer in this investigation-a class which elevates man to an isolate<
l station at the head of the animal kingdom. In his physical organization, 
but more especially in his mental endowments, he presents 
characteristics that are befitting a being whose aspirations are not 
bounded by mortality, who "is made a little lower than the angels 
crowned with glory and honour," and to whom "has been given dominion 
m·er the works or' God's "hands." 


.6 


The class mammalia is subdivided into nine orders, of which that of 
the lri.mana is by most naturalists restricted to man alone. 

Genera are subdivisions of the families in the several orders. They 
are formed from the. number and distribution of the teeth, number 
of toes, the possession or the absence of cheek pouches, character of 
the nails, etc. Thus the Gentis Equus is composed of several speciesthe 
horse, ass, quagga, zebra, etc., all characterized by the same number 
and formation of teeth ( 40) ; feet ·wiih a single apparent toe, covered 
with a thick hoof; mammre two, inguinal; stomach simple and membranaceous-
these are different species, -but they have so many characteristics 
in common, that naturaHsts have arranged them under the same 
genus. Thus the many species in the Genus Canis-the dogs: wolves, 

etc., baV"e 42 teeth; all similarly arranged. The Genus Felis, the cats 

30 teeth and retractile nails. All the species in each genus must have 

the essential characters that belong to the genus. 

It has sometimes been urged as an argument in favor of the existence 

of several species of men, that as there are many species among other 

genera, we have reason to look for a similar arrangement and distribution 

in the human race. The facts, when carefully investigated, will prove 

that this, instead of being an argument against the theory of the unity 

of the human race, is rather ih favor of it. The Creator carries on his 

own designs in his own way, regardless of tbe systems of imperfect men. 

·why he should have placed on the Eastern Continent sixty species of 

Antelopes and not one in America/' why-he should have given the 

immense number of species of squirrel in America and only one in Eu


rope, or why he should have multiplied the almost countless species of 

humming birds in America and withheld even a single species from 

every other quarter of the world, is best known to him "whose ways are 

past :finding out." Let it suffice, howeV"er, to state that in tlie arrange


ment of the wise Creator, it was far from a universal rule to create more 

than one species in a genus. There is but one species of BeaV"er in the 

Genus (Castor fiber). There is but one species of Musk-rat (Fiber 

Zibetticus ). One species only in the Genus Leo-the Lion. One onIy in 

the American Sewellel (.A plodontia leporina ). One only in the Sea Otter 

(Enhydra marina). One species of Giraffe (Camelopardilis giraffa). 

One species of Musk Ox (Ovibosmoschatus)~being intermediate between 

the sbeep and the cow. We could enumerate many others among 

quadrupeds. Among ~irds they ~r(" still more numerous, and we are 

* The prong horned Antelope of Americn. belongs to another genus 
Antiloc.apra. 

prepared to give the list· of at least fifty species in which there is but a 

single species in each genus. We will only instance our familiar ac


quaintance, the wild turkey. There is but one species in the genus 

(Meleagris gallopavo ). The so called ocellated turkey of Honduras, it 

is now ascertained, is not a turkey, but belongs to· a different 

genus breeding on trees, &c. Our wild turkey, composed of one 

species and one genus, has, like man, become domesticated, and 

like man exists under all colours, white, grey, red and black, ancl 

under diffE>rent' latitudes, in every portion of the civilized world; 

the only difference is, that whilst the turkey has· been carried to 

different countries by. man, the latter, by his intelligence and cosmopolite 

propensities, has. carried himself. In a rnst number of genera among 

reptiles, fishes and plants, there is but a single species in the genus. 

The existence of man, therefore, as the sole representative in the genus 

Homo is not an exception to a rule, but is in accordance with the plans 

of the Creator, in other departments of nature. 

We should regard it as a work of supererogation to occupy any space 

in this ar~icle by proving that however numerous may be the yarieties


or races-or species in the human family, they must all by the rules of 

science, be included under one genus. The notions of Brock and others 

who divided t4e human family into several_ sub-genera are altogether 
' inadmissible, according to all the laws of Zoological science. 

We are now brought to a consideration 6f species. The characters 

by which species are formed are natural and not artificial. Linnreus 

says : "In bis classis et ordo est sapientiae, genus et species naturae 

opus; omnis vera cognitfo est specialis, solida autem generalis.* "In this 

arrangement the classes and orders are arbitrary, the genera and species 

are natural. All true knowledge refers to the species, all solid know


ledge to the genus." 

Cuvier says : "We are under the necessity of admitting the exis. 

tence of certainjorms which have perpetuated themselves from the be


ginning of the world, without exceeding the limits first prescribed. 

All the individuals belonging to one of these forms constitute a 

species." 

Decandole says : "We unite under the designation of species all 

those . individuals who mutually bear to each other so close a resem


blance as to allow of our supposing that they may have proceeded ori


ginally from a single being or a single pair." * * * "lt happens 

not unfrequently that two individuals belonging really to the same 

• Linne. systema naturae tom. I, p. 13. Edit. 12. 

8 


species, differ more among themselves in appearance than do others of 
distinct species. Thus the spaniel and the Danish dog are, as to their· 
exterior, more different from each other than the dog and the wolf. And 
the varieties of our fruit trees offer greater apparent differences than 
many species."* . 

In the elements of mammalogy by Milne Edwards and Acbille Comte, 
used as a text book in the Colleges of France; the following ~efinition of 
species is given : 

"The name species is applied to an assemblage of individuals which 
bear a strong resemblance to each other, and which are perpetuated 
with the same essential qualities. Thus man; the dog, the horse, constitute 
to the eye of the Zoologist so many distinct species.'' p. 11. 

Martin, in his recent work, gives the following definition, being one 
of the most . concise and satisfactory we have seen : " Species 
are.fixed and permanent forms of being, exhibiting indeed certain modes 

. \ 

of variation, of which they may be more or less .susceptible; but maintaining 
throughout those modifications, a sameness of structural essentials 
transmitted from generation to generation, and never l<?st by the 
influence of causes, which otherwise produce obvious effects.. Varieties 
are either accidental or the result of the care and culture of man."t 

Agassiz says :... "The species is founded upon less important distinctions" 
(than the genus) "such as colour, size, proportions, s~ulpture, &c. 
Thus we have different kinds or species of duck, different species of 
squirrel, different species of monkey, &c., varying from each other in 
some trivial circumstance, while those of each group agree in all their 
general structure. The specific name is the lowest term to which we 
descend, if we except certain peculiarities, generally induced by some 
modification of native habits, such as are seen in domestic animals· 
These are called varieties, and seldom endure beyond the causes which 

o casioned them." 
The following definition of the terms species and varieties:_as received 
by naturalists, who, although they did not .use the same words, 
expressed the same thoughts-was published by us a few years ago. 

"Species we define as applying to those individuals resembling each 
other in dentition and general structure. In wild animals as a general 
rule they must approach the same size; but both in wild and domesticated 
animals they must have the same duration of life, the same period 
of utro-gestation, the same average number of progeny, the same habits 

*M. de Candole physiologie vegetate tom. ii: p. 68. 
t Nat. Hist. man and monkey, p. 16. 
~Principles of Zoolo;:ry by Agas>'iz & Gould. 18·18. p. 14. Introduction. 

9 


and instincts, in a word, they belong to one stock that produce fertile 
offspring by association.'' 

"Vaneties are those that are produced within the limits of a particular 
species, and· have not existed from its first origin. They sometimes 
originate in· wild species; especially those that have a wide geographical 
range and are thus exposed to change of climate, temperature, &c.'' 
* * * "Permanent varieties are such as having. once taken place 
are propagated in perpetuity, and do not change their characteristics 
unless they breed with other varieties."* _ 

On comparing these definitions as given by various naturalists, each 
in his own language, it will be perceived that there is no essential difference 
in the views they have expressed in regard to the characters by 
which a·species is designated. -They all regard it as "the lowest term to 
which we descend with the exception of varieties, such as are seen in 
domestic animals." They are to examine the internal ·and external or· 
ganization of the animal or plant-they are to compare it with kindred 
species, and if by this examinationit is found to possess permanent characters, 
differing from those of other· species, ii proves itself to be a distinct 
species. When this fact is" satisfactorily ascertained, and the specimen 
is not found to be a domestic species in which varieties always occur, presumptive 
evidence is afforded ofits having had a primordial existence. We 
infer this from the fact that no species is the production of a blind chance, 
and that within the knowledge of history, no true species, but varieties 
only, whose origin can be distinctly traced to existing and well known 
species, have made their appearance in the world. This then is the 
only means within the knowledge of man by which any species of plant 
or animal ·can be shown to be primordial. The peculiar form and characters 
designated the species, and its origin was a necessary inference derived 
from the characters stamped on it by the hand of the Creator. 

In accordance 'With this definition ofspecies and varieties every natmalist 
has been governed in his descriptions and designation ofspecies, 
Hamilton Smith, Dr. Morton and Professor· Agassiz included. The 
naturalists of the world, without a solitary exception; have adopted thia 
binary system of Linnreus in the designation of genera and species, a1Ml 
according to this understanding of the term species, every thing in· natur&. 
from man to the mollusca, and from the sturdy oak to the minutest: 
eryptogam has received its specific name. 

According to this universally received definition of species, all them.. 
dividnals in the human race are proved to be ofone species, even by tha 
admissioD: of Agassiz ·himself-and ·the "varieties," aC(ordiDg to. the. 

*Doctrine ofthe unity of the human race, pp.19,20~ 


IO • 


same author, . "are induced by some modification of some native habit, 
such as are seen in domestic animals." 

_In the number of separate bones composing the human skeletonamounting 
to 240-in the peculiar structure of the breast-bone, there 
being · eight pieces in infancy, three in youth and .but one in old age; 
in the droppfog out of the milk teeth, between the sixth and fourteenth 
year, which are replaced by thirty-two permanent teeth, there is a perfect 
uniformity in every variety of nian. So also in the period of gestation-
the _number of young at a birth, generally one, and very rarely 
two; the period oflongevity, &c., the different varieties of men present a 
perfect similarity. They all possess those high prerogatives of man, the 
attributes . of ·speech and the faculties of the . mind, with capacities of 
transmitting any improvement to their descendants. In·an there is a 
capacity to acquire the languages and songs of other tribes, whilst they 
may forget those of their forefathers~ Thus whole nations have forgotten 
their languages and adopted those of other nations. _But no species 
of quadruped or biped, has . ever lost its native notes and adopted the 
notes of another species. In all we discover the same instincts ; in all, 
the power of conscience, the recognition of truth, and a sense of. right 
and wrong; in all, some sentiment of religion, some recognition of a 
higher power; in all, the hope of immortality; in all, the idea of a happier 
life, and the _dread of punishment beyond the grave~ Positive 
atheism is excluded from the creed of all nations.-._ 

.All the varieties of the human· species are known to increase and 
multiply with each other-thus forming new varieties, which have continued 
to propagate from the earliest periods oil record through every 
succeeding age up to the present time. Our neighbours of Mexico, and 
the mulattoes in the United States-the latter now numbering according 
to the last census, 405,'151-give sufficient evidence that they, are 
far removed from the characteristic condition that belong to hybrids. In 
fact such has been the blending of nations, that if the theory of the believers 
in the plurality of the human species (from two to a hundred, as 
they cannot designate the number of species and are all found to disagree 
in this particular,) be true, it is evident that the whole world must 
by this time be made up of hybrids, and we in America might eve"n 

.tremble lest the prediction of their admired champion, Knox, might 
be fulfilled-that we already evidence "symptoms of premature decay'' 
and will soon "die, out and out.",· Very ·different has been the result 
in the production of.hybrids betw~n. two species of animals or birds, 
however nearly allied. No new,race has ever been produced. ·It is in 
this way that the Creator of species as5erts His prerogative in prevent



11 


ing a scene of confusion, and an unnatural blending together of different 
species ·in the animal world. ·We invite any true naturalist among 
the believers in the plurality of species in man, to produce asingle race 
among animals now existing in the ·world which ·it can be distinctly 
proved has been perpetuated by the union of.· two distinct species. 
The diversities of colour, and of hair or feathers, among the varieties 
that are known to exist in the same species .of domestic ·quadrupeds 
and poultry, are also as great as ·are seen in the colour and 
structure of hair in the varieties of the human family. , · 

Seeing that there were no ;characteristics · that could on the long 
settled and universally received definition of species,. separate the·varieties 
of men and divide them into ·different species; the advocates for the 
doctrine of a plurality in the species of men, have been driven as a last 

. resort, to the necessity of inventing• a .new definition ·for the word 
species, to accomm~date their new theory~ This we will now proceed to 
examine.· ,·. . .. 

In the "Types of Mankind, by Nott & Gliddon," p. 3'15, we find published 
the following definition of species, as given by Dr. Morton, ex. 
tracted from the proceedings, of the Academy of ·Natural Sciences, 

September, 1850.·. 

· "As the result of much observation and reflection, I now submit a 
definition, which I hope will obviate at least some of the objections to 
which I have alluded. "' 

"Species. A primordial organicform. It will be justly 1emarked 
that a difficulty presents itself, at the outset, in determining what forms 
are primordial; but independently of ·rnrious other sources of. evidence, 

. we may be greatly assisted in the inquiry, by those monumental records, 
both of Egypt and Assyria, of which we are now happily possessed of 
the proximate dates. My view. may be briefly explained by saying, 
that if certain exh,ting organic types can be traced back foto the 'night of 
. time,' as dissimilar as we now see them, is it not more reasonable to 
regard them as aboriginal, than to.suppose them the mere accidental 
derivations of an isolated patriarchal stem, of which we know nothing, 
&c. Hence,: for: example, I believe the do~ family ~ot to have originated 
from one primitive form, but in.many·forms. Again, what I call 

. a species may be regarded by some naturalists as. a primitive variety; 
but as the difference is . only. in naine and· no. way influences the 
: zoological question, it is unnec~ary to notice it further." 
To this definition of species Prof •. Agassiz gi·ves in his adhesion hi the 
following words : 
"The only definition of species meeting all these difficulties is that of 


12 


·Dr. Morton. who characterises them as primordial organic forms. Spe_
cies are thus distinct forms of organic liie, the origin or which is lost in 
.the primitive establishment of the state of things now existing, and vari


etie8 are such modifications of the species as may return to the typical 
,.form_ under temporary influences."* 
In this ·graye discussion, the inquiry in regard to the time. when this 

-.short.definition of the term species-the most important in the whole 
range of scieriee-was -published, must not be overlo()ked. Morton h~d 
published his two articles. on hybridity in Silliman's Journal, in 184'1. 
· The many errors he had committed in those two · papers were commented 
on in ~fayand March, 1850. Before that discussion had come 
to a close, he publicly and' in this journal, acknowledged many of the 
errors he had committed in those very cases, which had the most im-
portant bearing on the subject under discussion; but as a set off pre. 
sented some new ·cases of hybridity, which will be examined in due 
time. In Sept. 1850, three months after our review of his articles, he 
published the above definition of the term species. Agassiz commenced 
his attack on the dpctrine of the unity ofthe human race in his two letters 
in the Christian Examiner, March and Jilly, 1850. They were immediately 
answered from several quarters, and, now in 1854, he sends in 
his adhesion to Morton's definition or species. The: discussion had become 
animated and exciting-the case was already in. court-the 
briefs had all been made out-the arguments of counsel hadin part been 
heard on both sides, when to the astonishment of the court and jury, 
theparties that had commenced the attack and were now on the defensive; 
constitute themselves into a congress or legislators, concoct and 

. promulgate a new law, and· insist thai:their case which had been so 
lorig on the docket should be decided, not by the existing and univer~
ally acknowledged laws that governed the nations of naturalists, but 
by that which they had framed to suit the emergencies of their own 
ca5e which ~as now in considerable jeopardy. , The opposing parties 
enter a demurrer, and declare it u cunning device, and to all intents and 
purposes a post factum law, which cannot be applied to the present 
case under any circumstance, and which cannot fail to be pronounced 
illegitimate and unconstitutional. 

Let us, however, examine this definition ·of species as being characterized 
by "a primordial organic form." Here a prominence is given 
to that which is not even a characteristic of the species-its primordial 
existence being only an inference, whilst the characters stamped on the 

•Nott &Gliddon'e Types, p. '74. 

Ulli'i(<j,;;ty Oi Ye:.~: 

Austin, Texas 

13 


species are the only tests which will enable any naturalist to pronounce 
a decision. .. . 
~Let us first inquire in regard to wild species. What means __ do we 
possess that will aid us in designating the species, by searching on the monuments 
to .determine whether they were primordial, or, in other ~ords,. 
had existed from the beginning~-Vfe have now in the United States nearlysev~
n hundred species Of birds, and a little more than halfthat number 
<>f quadrupeds, that are named and described. Is there, we ask, a single 
figure-extant, carved on stone or·earthen ware, or painted on rocks, by 
the ancient Indians of our country, that would enabl~ us to decide olu· 
single species in the land 1 More especially is the diffic~lty increased. 
where, as is often the case, there are ma~y species in each genus that 
require the closest scrutiny, to enable the naturalist to pronounce a_ sa~· 
tisfactory decision.-We possess a much better guide in the designation 
of species,than that which could be given us by the rude stone chissel;-or: 
the painted daubs 0£ the ancient lords of our for~ts. We possess the. 
species themselves, with the characters impressed on them by the hand 
of the Creator,-.and from these we-are enabled to decide on their id~ntity,. 
and from this identity we infer· their primordial origin. All the Iishes, 
and every species named .by Agassiz, were described -from the cJiarac~: 
ters they presented in nature, without.resorting to the unprofitable, and 
impracticable search after their primordial existence. Among the fe~: 
species described by Dr. Morton, the last, as far as we know, was ane\Y 
hippopotamu8, found in. Westem Afric~ ~nd describe~ from ~wo skuiiS~~ 
sent him by Dr. Goheen. ·~e'.adopted the mod.e pursued ~y .al~ natu.-_ 
ralists; scrutinized the. teeth and the skulls-compared them with .the 
other existing speeies of river horse, and also compared the skulls, which 
were the only portions of the animals received, with the fossil r~mains ~f 
extinct species of the same genus. As a still further precaution. h.e~. -~he 
informs us, "sent the speci.mens by the hands of Sir Charles Ly~l4 
to London, to be examined by those distinguished comparative anato~
ists, Professor Owen, of the Royal College 0£ Surgeons,-and Dr. Hugh 
Falconer, author of the Fauna Sivalensis."* Here was the cautions, 
straight forward, and scientific mode of deciding on a species, whicJi 
all true naturalists ought to pursue~. But he could not have thoughf of 
searching "the monumental records of Egypt· or Assyria," to enable. 
him to decide on the name (Hippopotamus Liberienses) by which ~~ 
designated this new species. . 

Let us now procee~ to· apply this new test of primordial origin, in 

•Morton's Observations on a new living epecies of Hippopotamus. Philad. 1849. 
651731 



14 


deciding on the species and varieties «'>r domestic animals and of men, 
to the practical experience of natu~alists. . . 

From the opportunities we have enjoyed in the examination of the 
varieties in the species of domesticated quadrupeds and birds, we have 
never 'found an'y diffic~lty in deciding on the species to which these varieties 
befong.; .we all know the .variations tha~ occur in the descendants 
of all species subjected to man's control. They have multiplied races, 
which, in ~uccession, have submitted to his will. · In a few generations 
they exhibited varieties deviating, in a lesser or higher degree, from the 
original types. The elephant, it has sometimes been said, is an exception 
to this ·rule. ·To this, it must be replied, individual elephants are 
tamed, but their predecessors were not tamed before them. The . elephant 
does not breed in its state of surveillance ; and until it multiplies, 
like the horse~ the cow, and other animals under man's subjection, no 
varieties will be produced. Whe~ the e_lephant dies, he is replaced, 
not by his P!ogeny for he leaves none, but by' others captured from the 
woods. · There is, however, not a single species, that may be regarded 
as-truly dom~stieated, ~hich;·under the influences of the changes of 
clim:ate, of food, or other causes with ~hich we are, at present, unacquainted, 
does not v_ary much more, hi form or in ~olour, than the varieties 
of. men. These varieties, when left in' the localities where they' 
were p~duced,·become as perman~n~ as· the speci~ thems~lves. We 
have seen the successors of the wild turkey, reared from eggs tak6n from 
the woods, losing their metallicc~lours from_ year to·year, and becoming 
sp~tted with white in the· third generation. The wild instinct· which 
caused the young of the first generation to' dart off from their domestic 
mother, conceal themselves in 'the gras~, and, many of them, to stray 
away and die, whilst those of the tame breed allowP.d you to handle 
them, disappeared gradually, from generation to generation, until they 
:finally acquired all the docility-the dependence and stupidity of the 
common domesticated breeds. The descendants· of the formidable wild 
boar, still existing in the forests of Germany, submit still more readily 
to domestication; and, among these, varieties have sprung up under the 
very eyes of naturalists ; hence, no naturaiist would hazard· his rep~tation 
in the dangerous assertion that the numerous and very striking va· 
rleties of the hog, were indebted to any other parentage than that of 
the wild denizen of the forests of the Eastern continent; sus scrophus. 

Knowing, then, that such is the process of naturn,· in every species 
brought under man's subjection, we are, in looking for characters among 
domesticated species, to take into consideration those peculiarities which, 
it is known and admitted, have been produced in 'the altered circum



15 


stances .in the life of the animal : Hence, colour, which is a specific char· 
acter in the designation of a large majority of wild species of quadru· 
peds and birds, must be entirely disregarded in our examination of those 
varieties which have originated among domestic species; every one of 
these-the horse, cow, goat, sheep, swine, dog,_ cat, rabbit, turkey, the 
common fowl, goose, musk duck, mallard, pigeon, canary bird, and even 
the little guinea pig, are found of every varrety of colour, and through 
all shades, from black to the purest_ white. In size and form, it is well 
known. the varieties among domesticated species differ much more than 
the varieties in the human family. There are breeds among·the horse, 
cow, and all the other domestic races, down to the common fowl and 
pigeon, that are larger than other ''arieties in the same species. The 
difference iri form is still more striking, which may be observed on com· 
paring the Arabian courser with the heavy and gigantic dray horse and 
the diminutive Shetland poney ; or the common cow with the Brahmin, 
the Durhams, or any of the imported breeds :-or the greyhound with 
the mastiff-the spaniel with the lap dog. The texture of the hair, 

which in wild species is a characteristic, although of secondary import· 
ance, cannot be depended on in the examination of domesticated varieties. 
There is found, among the different breeds of sheep and goat, 
every kind of hair, from the coarsest texture to the finest wool. 

Admitting, then, that colour, size, some variations in form, and the 
texture of the hair afford us no characteristics in the designation of the 
species in domesticated breeds, it will be inquired what is left to the 
naturalist, to guide him in those.researches which will enable him to decide 
between a variety and a true species 1 AfternlI, may he not be 
obliged to resort to the "primordial" theory, and make a pilgrimage to 
Egypt and Assyria; to satisfy his ·doubts? , We answer, we have still 
characters sufficient for all the purposes of science-characters of prima• 
ry importance, whilst those, that are subject to change, are only seconda. 
ry-characters that are unchangeable under all the influences of domes· 
tication. These we shall now proceed to point out. 

In zoological science there exist what naturalists term essential char· 
acters-there are others, of less importance, which serve still further to ' 
elucidate the species, but are not regarded as essential. We will, for 
the sake of comparison, refer to a single well .known domesticated spe· 
cies, which will serve as an example for all others; inasmuch as they 
are all similarly constituted in the production and perpetuation of va· 
rieties. 

The wild boar, (Sus scrophus,) in addition to its generic characters of 
fifty-four teeth, its elongated cartilagenous nose furnished with a particu· 


16 


lar bpne, and its thick bide co\'ered with stiff hair, possesses, also, spe


-cific characters, which distinguish it from all other wild and undomesti· 
cated species of the genus. Its tusks are strong, triangular, and directed 
almost latterally, and this form of the tusks is found in all its varieties' 
whilst the tusks of the babyrussa-a kindred species-are not so thick, 
are more elongated, and those on the upper jaw curl upwards and nearly 
meet in front of the eyes. -Another species, the masked bm1r, (Sus larV;
ltus,) is distingushed by a fleshy prominence on the fore part of the 
head, entirely em·eloping the upper half, like a mask, thus presenting 
the appearance of two heads, the half, of the one being, as it were, 
enclosed in the other. There are many other permanent cbaraeters, 
in other species of the genus, which draw, a line of distinction between 
them and any varieties of the common hog. Col. C. Hamilt.On 
Smith, an authority to which our opponents will not object, ha.c; enumerated 
ten distinctly marked varieties of the common bog;* and we could 
add six or seven others that have appeared since be wrote in 182'1. He 
says: "There can be no doubt that this species is the root of our domestic 
bog." Thus, Smith has given two more varieties of the hog, 
than Ag~iz bas of men-which the latter divides into eight originally 
" created nations." They both agree that all the ·varieties of the hog, 
black, brown, grey, and white, that are now found in all ·countries, where 
man has taken up his residence, from the tropics to the poles, have their 
parentage in the wild hog.t This being admit~d, we invite the advo· 
cates of plurality in the human species: to show wherein these varieties 
are less striking than their eight originally "created nations." An original 
creation is, according to the language of science, a species. A variety 
is not an original creation, but only one of the branches that are 
developed from an original cTeatioD', and is, therefore, not a species. 
There are no "primitive varieties" in nature. Here their new theory, 
of" a primordial organic form,'' is brought in to their assistance. They 
are aware that the wild hog had its many and permanent varieties during 
those dark ages in which there was no Herodotus, Virgil, Columella, 
or Mago, and no Linnreus or Cuvier, to record its history. And how 
has the discovery beeri made, that all these permanent races are mere varieties, 
and not "originally created" species, or "primitive varieties i" 
Simply because the naturalists of Germany, finding that the original 
wild hog still exists in their forests, ha\·e, in a thousand instances, reclaimed 
them from the woods. By this means they have discovered 
that their descendants, after a few generations, lose their ferocity-as


* Griffith's Cuvier, vol. 3rd .• pp. 405-6: 
t Agassiz, in Nott & Gliddon's Types of Mankind, p. 67. 

sume all colours, and produce those very varieties which existed in byegone 
ages, "in the night of time," from which no facts in natural history 
have been handed down to us. The mere accidental, or providential fact, 
then, of the present existence of the wild hog in the forestS of Europe, Asia, 
and Africa,-and hence the opportunities afforded naturalists to observe 
the varieties which it has produced in domestication,-has caused them to 
pronounce all these widely separated breeds as mere varieties, descended 
from a "primordial organic form.~' Here, according to their theory, 
they have been brought to a correct conclusion, by an accident. Suppose, 
however, that the wild hog had long been exterminated from the 
world, as the Dodo has been from tlie Island of Mauritius, where it was, 
(to use· a recently introduced word,) an "autochthon," and beyond 
which it never strayed; what then, according to their system, would 
have been their guide in arriving at truth~ ,They. would have been 
compelled, according to their " primordial " definition of species, to have 
described all these varieties as distinct species, and ihus would have 

committed a gross error, the result of having adopted a theory which, 
on the very-outset, proves itself utterly incapable of guiding us in our 
researches and· investigations of the laws of nature. According to this 
definition, the varieties in the horse would ·au be regarded as'distinct species, 
because, if the wild horse, in the deserts of Mongolia, should be 
proved to hav~ escaped from domestication and became wild, his origin 
could not be traced. The goats, cashmere! Maltese, &c., would be niere 
varieties, because the1r parents may be found in a wild state in the mountains 
of Persfa and Cauca$sus; and the v~rious breed of cqws would be 
all species, because there is yet some 'doubt whether the existing wild 
Urus is the parent. When that point is settled they will become varieties. 
The varieties in the common cat, which, for ages, could not be 
traced io the European wild cat, must, acco'rding to this principle, have 
all been distinct speciP,s1 until, by a lucky accident, Ruppel disco\1ered it 
in a wild state, inhabiting the rocky and bushy regions west of t_he Nile, 
when, all at once,. these, hitherto; new species became. Yarieties. The 
Yarious breeds in our tame -turkey, white, brown, and black, are now 
only varieties, because the wild turkey still exists. But since Temminck 
could not, satisfactorily, trace the various breeds of our common fowl 
to a wild parentage, he made, according to Morton, ten distinct species, 
the silk fowl and the rnmpless fowl. included. All the varieties of the 
tame pigeon, which are more remarkable than -in any other species domesticated 
by man-the little tumbler, the fan-tail, the hairy pigeon, 
the powter, the runt, and numberless others, they admit, are mere varie


ies of one species. The only evidence they can offer for this distinction 


18 


is; because, we are so fortunate as to have the original rock dove, in its 
wild state, breeding in Europe, and, because, when it is now domesticated, 
it produces these same varieties. But sbou}d the rock dove have been exterminated-
and no longer exist in a wild state-then, according to their 
newly invented theory, all these striking varieties of the pigeon would 
be elevated into true species. 

'Because the ·species man,· p·ossessed. of intelligence-restless, enterprising,. 
and migratory-can no longer be traced up. to the time. of his 
creation by many centuries-because his form cannot be traced "into 
the night of time," and since he was not created as a wild man, who 
subsequently became tamed and domesticated ;.therefore, according to 
this strange definition of species, there must be a plurality of species, or 
at least a plural creation of nations. Some ham, accordingly, divided 
him into two species-some into three-some into five-one into eight 
separate creations_;and one, more enthusiastic than all the rest, can 
see no reason why "there were not, originally,. an hundred species."* 
We have barely space to inquire where, in this case, they would place 
the intermediate varieties 1 Of the numerous tribes of American Indians, 
Dr. Morton says, in his last publications :t ''He who has seen one 
tribe of Indians, has seen all." Thus, the miserable Fuegian-the tall 
Patagonian-the brave Iroquois, the intelligent Cberokee-the fierce and 
cmel131ackfcet:__the thieving Camanches, or Apaches-and the flat he~ds; 
the latter, their champions, Smith & Knox, pronounce a distinct species, 
are aU included under one race. Rumbolt.informs us of white tribes of 
Indians, on the upper Oronoco. He says of them : "The individuals of 
the fair tribes, whom we examined, have the features, the stature, and the 
smooth, straight, black hair which characterises other Indians. It would 
be impossible to take them for a mixed race, like the descendants of natives 
and Europeans, and they are neither feeble nor albinos." . ·Dr. 
Mortott informs us of other races of American Indians that are black: 
"The Charruas, who are almost black, inhabit the 50Q of South latitude, 
and the yet blacker Californians, are 25P North of the Equator."! Catlin 
says, of the Mandans, of the Upper Mississippi : "There are many 
of these people whose complexions are as light as half breeds; and, 
among the women especially, there are many whose skins are almost 
white, with the most pleasing symmetry and perfection of features, with 
hazel, with gray, and with blue eyes .."§ And, in regard to their hair, he 
says that it is, generally, " as fine and as soft as silk." Most of the 

* N ott's Biblical Hist. p. 33. 
t Schoolcrafts's H!st. American Indians, part ~' p. 316.-See, also, Morton's 
inedited i\ISS., Nott & Gliddon's Types, p. 324. 
t 1\lorton's Crania, p. 69. 
§Catlin's Customs, vol. I, p. 94. 


19 


other tribes are characterised by rigid, coarse hair. In multiplying the 

species of men, the great difficulty with them appears to be, in knowing 

where they are to draw the line of demarcation between the supposed 

species. The perplexity is equally great in endea,•ouring to preserve, in 

their purity and distinctness, the ever-mingling breeds of domesticated 

animals, who are found to show rio repugnance to a familiar intercourse.· 

A correct understanding of the Jaws of Nature in the creation of 

species would, we apprehend, enable us to interpret her works with 

much greater certainty by an examination of the species and varieties 

she has produced, than by resorting to the monumental records of 

Egypt, Assyria, or of Central America. In characterizing man either 

as species or varieties~ we must subject his physical form to the same 

rule that governs us in characterizing any of the lower animals. 

Returning then to the domesticated hog,' which we have selected 
for elucidation, as one among the many domesticated animals-ali 
of which being parallel cases-we inquire in what mode would· 
naturalists proceed in ascertaining whether its many breeds, so different 
in form and colour, and, when not intermixed, preserving their 
peculiarity of form to the end ·of time, · were true species or ·only 
varieties 1 We will suppose that the original wild hog had been 
entirely extirpated from the world, as it, together with the wolf, the 
bear, the beaver, and the wood grouse have dis:tppeared from Great 
Britain. We would now have no ancient history, no monumental 
records, and no tradition to guide us. The primordial theory would, 
therefore, be of no avail, since their savage forefathers had ali been 
exterminated, and left no geneological records by which their pedigree 
might be traced. · · 

We -would be governed in our investigations by those very rules 
which science has laid down for the designation of species and varieties~
rules which governed Linnreus and Cuvier, and every other naturalist, 
down to Agassiz and Morton, in their descriptions of every species 
published to the world. 

, We would first inquire whether these animals, with all their peculiarities 
of forms, belonged to the domesticated species. This being 
self-evident, _we would next inquire whether they all possessed the 
characteristics of the Genus (Sus.) This being easily ascertained from 
the number and form of the teeth, structure of the body, etc., we would 
thus feel assured that they all belonged to the same genus. We would 
next examine their internal and external structure, in order to ascertain 
whether there were a sufficient number of permanent characters to war-. 
rant us in throwing them into different species. We would pay no 


20 


regard to colour, to size, or to some peculiarities of form, inasmuch as 
these phenomena are invariably observed in all domesticated species. 
Havi~g ascertained that in those essential characters that constitute a 
species they all agreed, we would next endeavour to ascertain the period 
of gestation. · This .differs even among species belonging to the 
same genus :-In the elephant it endures for twenty-three months; in 
the horse eleven ; i~.the camel twelve; in the giraffe fifteen; in the ~w 
nine; in the . large red deer of Europe eight months; in our Virginia 
deer seven months; in the common sow, which produces a numerous 

. litterj only four months ; in the sheep five months; in the beaver four 
months; in our common grey rabbit thirty-three days ; in the squirrel· 
four weeks; in the bear eight n:ionths ; in the lion one hundred and 
eight days;. in our. cougar seventy-nine . days ; in the dog. sixty-three 
days ; in the wolf, sixty-three-days, etc.. Having ascertained that they 
were constituted alike in regard to ,the time of gestation,· and the average 
number of young; we would next inquire into.their voice-these 
are so peculiar in each species that they may be easily distinguished by 
their. notes of recognition, as well as those of pleasure and of pain. 
Martin says of the monkeys :"
The voices of the · simiadre are very various in the several groups, 
and different tones are uttered by each species, under the excitement of 
different passions. Moaning, whining, a hoarse gutteral barking, squeak-_ 
ing, screaming and chattering1 are heard· by turns,-wherever these animals 
are congregated, according as they are influenced by grief, pain 
love or anger." 
We have frequently. listened to these noisy monkey concerts in the 
monkey houses of London and Paris, and can testify to the truth 
of.the author's statement, that "different tones are uttered by each 
species." The note of recognition of the bog is a peculiar gutteral 
grunt, and that of pain is a shrill and angry squeel. To strengthen 
and confirm our convictions· beyond a doubt, we would apply the last 
and crowning test. We would ascertain whether these different breeds 
of swine had no repugnance . to each other, associated readily, and 
produced prolific offspring, which in their turn would multiply and perpetuate 
their stock, without the necessity of mingling with the varieties 
from which· they sprang. Having been satisfied that in all their characteristics 
they corresponded with each other in these rigid, scientific 
tests, we would unhesitatingly pronounce them all varities of. one and 
the same species, and from these natural as well as scientific tests, we 
·would infer their primordial origin. 
Let us now apply these tests in the definition of species-n definition 


21 


which was received by all naturalists before this discussion took plale, 
and is at this moment practically received by all, in investigating the 
claims of· the different varieties of men. . 

· We would respectfully inquire-Is there a single characteristic in the 
numerous varieties of the swine, (the various breeds being admitted by 
· all naturalists as .varieties ·of one sp'ecies) that ·will not apply with equal 
force to every variety in· the human family? So strikingly similar are 
.·the characteristics in all these varieties. of men, that Professor Agassiz 
himself has been compelled to admit that "man is everywhere the 
one identical species.". Although, in his last published opinions, he 
assumes, without giving any satisfactory reasons, that there might originally 
have been eight created nations, yet he is very cautious 'in. not 
calling them-specie~~and: in great doubt and uncertainty, adds:-''I 
·still hesitate to assign to each (race) an independent origin." We are 
encouraged to hope, therefore, that he who has always appeared to us 
as a searcher· after truth, and who is courteous iu his language,. and 
scientific in bis pu~uit.s, is not so hopelessly committed to an erroneous 
theory, as not to be induced to review the whole subject again. In the 
lower departments .of zoology, he ranks at the head of the naturalists 
.of our country, and we are not without· a hope, that after ha\·ing care


, fully studied those higher forms of animal life, which prepare us· to 
form an unbiassed judgment in regard to man and his varieties, he 
may return to ,his original views. If we look for those characteristics 
that are essential to aspecies, they are found in.every tribe or ~en on 
the whole earth. : Jr we compare man With every variety ill the' species 
of domesticated animals,· his variations present· the same phenomena; 

· 
if we a8cend higher· and· examine his instincts,· the powers of his mind, 
and his longings ·after immortality, we cannot but perceive that these 
gleams of intelligence and of hope exist, however partially developed, 
even among the most degraded and barbarous nations. 

Returning, however, to the aids which these naturalists encourage us 
to hope may be derived ·by searching the "monumental records of 
Egypt and .Assyria," we may ask what assistance can these affoJ.d us in 

· the designation of closely allied species or varieties of animals ? The 
fignres on these monuments have long been before the public in several 
valuable works. They are of interest, as affording evidences of the habits 
·and customs of eastern nations, the state of art, etc. They may aid us in a 
slight degree in studying the varieties in the human race, but the figures of 
the lower animals are too imperfect for scientific evidence. The reduced 
:figures of dogs in Nott and Gliddon, we ha-ve not compared with the 
original. Taking them, however, just as they are presented to the 


22 


reader, and presuming them to be faithful copies, we have no hesitation 
.in asserting that for all the purposes of the naturalist in the designation 
of species or. varieties, the figures of animals on .the monuments; are 
entirely valueless, and cannot ad~ance him a single step in a science 
which requires. the closest accuracy. .Even if they .were exact copies 
. from original living. specimens, (which is very far from being the case,) 
tlie~naturalist would prefer a shrivelled skin with .a perfect skeleton, to 
_the most exact 1·epresention which could be.produced by. the chiser or 
the brush. The drawings given for the purpose of illustrating the. 
monumental history of dogs, are in themseves sufficient to convince the 
naturalist that he must look ~o other sources 'than the monuments to 
.aid him in his scientific inquiries. Let us only look at the fig1ues on 
·_the ~ingle page 388 of "Nou & Gliddon's Types," and then inqure 
. what lights these would afford us in the designation of. species or varie_
ties 1 If the upper figure is a greyhound, as is stated, it must be not 
only a new species but a n.ew genus, since we have evidently nothing 
in nature at the present day to correspond with it. If this is an accurate 
representation of the greyhound as it then existed, (with a short 
tail turned upwards like that of the rabbi't) it affords one of the strpngest 
_evidences-of the changes which time has· effected, since no such variety 
of greyhound exists in our day. As ~we have sev~ral species of hyena 
and wolf, the naturalist would loo~ in vain to these figures. to assist, him 
in the designation of any particular species ..· . The figure on. the same.
· page of a supposed jackal is a ,curiosity in i~elf. We feel convinced 
t~at the ancient artists were no naturalists, and are inclined to the belief 
. that they .had no specimens before them to.a~d them in their. delinea.
tions ;-that with them, a dog was a dog,, and it now requires the aid 
. of imagination to enable us to decide on the variety. We feel no disposition 
in this place to, enter on an investigation of these caricatures of 
dogs, as we are fully aware that the book of nature is a much , safer 
guide to the naturalist in the investigation of species, than th~ very im. 
perfect and unsatisfactory figures on the monuments. We are advocating 
the doctrine of the Unity of the Human Race simply on, scientific 
principles. We care not to make issues on points that have no Jegiti


. mate bearing on the subject to which we are restricted in this discussion. 
Those with whom we intend to have no controversy have nothing 
to apprehend from our criticisms. We_ may; howe·rer, here observe that 
the figures of dogs and of men (the latter only are of any scientific 
value,) on the eastern monuments, have been carefully studied and delineated 
by master minds".""".'""men, at whose feet.Mr. Gliddon has set as an 
. humble copyist. They have ·commenced giving to the world the result 


23 


of their scientific researches.. Both Lepsius and Bunsen have already 
proclaimed their belief in the doctrine of the Unity of the Human Race, 
and the former, as we are informed is now engaged in a work, in which 
he will offer reasons for the faith that is in him. Thus these monumen, 
tal records, which caused Gliddon to pronounce in the language of scorn 
and obloquy a tirade against the scriptures, convincetl the minds of 
Lepsius and Bunsen of their truth, and filled· them with humility, reverence 
and awe. Their scientific researche~ satisfied them of the doctrines 
proclaimed by Moses, and confirmed by Paul. 

''And (God) hath made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell 
on the face of the earth, and hath determined the times before appointed, 
and the bounds of their habitation." Acts 17 ch. 26 v. 

These distinguished naturalists both arrived at the conclusion, from 
·these very monuments, that the negro races had only been develo].Jed in 
the course of ages within the African tropics and were derived from 
Egypt. ·The minds of men are differently constituted, and we ·here 
perceive what opposite impressions are ·made on different minds in visiting 
the same localities, and in investigating the same subjects. 

Our object in the present _article has been to show-Ist. That the 
newly proposed definition of the term species, as " a primordial organic 
form,'' was opposed to all the operations of nature and the judgment 
of naturalists of all ages, that it was arbitrarily framed to suit a 
recently adopted theory-that it was substituting tradition, and uncer


, 
tain history in the room of these characteristi~ which are impressed on 
the species by the hand of the Creator. 2dly. That naturalists in all 
ages had, with a remarkable unanimity, laid down a rule of interpretation 
for species, founded on the characters by which species could be 
distinguished-that t~is rule had always been satisfactory, and that by 
it every species in the 'world had been described by naturalists-including 
the individuals who proposed it to the world-and that without its 
observance no species can be described. 3dly. That according to this 
definition of species, man, regarding him as a domesticated being, must 
be characterised by those rules which govern naturalists in their examination 
of 'domesticated animals, and that by this rule, man is proved to 
be one species, composed of many varieties. It may farther be stated, 
as we have shown elsewhere, that every species has had a central birth 
place, and that in the wide range of creation no species has ever been 
found which afforded satisfactory evidence that it had separate creations, 
viz: the species created in one locality, and a variety of the same species 
in another. We bsve also shown that this rule was uniform in every 
species of animal and plant, and that where the same species was widely 


_24 


·diffused, itS' mode or migration -or diffusion could easily be traced.. 
-. Hence it would be found contrary to a law of-nature, which is universal 
--in every other department, _to find the same species of " man created in 
. nations" in. different quarters ·of the globe,-and that hence, like all other 

_.-.·.species, having had-·a central birth place; his-diffusion must be accounted-'.. 
for, on the ordinary :principle8 -of migration, for which he has been 
physically and intellectually well qualified, and that his varieties in the _-.
different quarters of-the world, must have had their origin in the same 
-law which regulates the production of varieties in every species domesticated 
by man~