OCR Text |
Show 4.38 THE llfONOGF.NISTS AND Chenu,03 have discussed more recently the points of resemblance, or of disparity, existing between the Bimanes aud the Quadrurnanes. Their united results will be passed under review in the second division of our essay. Nevertheless, Mol'tono.' and AO'assiz 05-accountod by celebrated naturalists, anatomists, cranioscopists, palroontologists, and ethnogra phcrs, to possess a weighty voice in the premises, have not been ablo to reconcile tho term "species," as applied customarily (and as I think, too loos ly) to nu.t11hnd, with the rigorous use of this word in more broadly-marked departments of Natural History. Dr. Meig. 's, Prof. Leidy's, Dr. N ott's, contributions to the present volume cover the ground of debate on a point which, in its bearingB upon mankind, cacl1 writer has studied as profoundly as any ethnologist living. For my individual part, I follow my master in archroology, Lotronnc; wl10, in 1845, commenced his :fu·st lesson to our crowded Egyptian class, at Paris, with the sentence-" Messieurs! ava11 t tout, commcn9ons par noLlS entendre sur des terrneB :" because, until the precise limit of the designation "species" becomes absolutely defined, or even conventionally agt·ccd upon, it might, perhaJs, be prudent to su pend its further obtrusion into Anthropology. A naturali t of repute has remarked-" The Germans themselves, whose terminology did possess the fault of being so vague, now aspire to exactitude of language. This docs not moan to say that the definitions of naturalists have an absolute value, that is not possible in human sciences; but they have at ]east a precise value. Everybody[?] now-a-days knows what is understood by the words 11pecies, race, and variety. "It is certain that, in scientific discussions of which man bas been tho object, the words genus, species, race, and variety, have been too ofton confounded. N overthelcss, the meaning of these words is now perfecLly determined, and it suffices, to avoid all error, to sticl' to the definitions ]aiel down by naturalists. Thm;, one genoraJly understands by species, n.n aHscrubJago of beings which descend, or may be l'cgurcled as descending, fr·om common parentage [that is, fit·st a rnle is made absol uto, a p1·iori, and then all tho different types of men arc made to fit into iL !] The unio11 of many species, possessing botwcou oach other multiplied affinities, forms a genus. Tho words race and. variety both indicate a variation of tho type ~f the species, of which, e:J EnetJclopedie d' lliBloire Naturelle, Paris, 1862? vol, i, "Quadromancs, pp. 1-21 : probably nmong tho most copious ns well as the fairest analyzers of these questions. uo Types of Manki11d, pp. 81, 875, and elsewhere, oites Dr. Morton's writings. M Op. cit., p. lxxiv, Prof. Agnssiz's definitions. Soc also tho P1·ofo~sor's fresh contribution, ante. TilE POLYGENISTS. 430 moreover, they arc derivatives. But tho word variety is not applicable save to individuals: the word race is an assemblage of individuals descending from the same species and transmitting to each other determinate characters. "The difference between species and race is, th rcforc, that the fi I'St possesses something fixed, something indcponucnt of aecidcntal a1Hl variable conditions of the (milieu ambiant) fluctuating centr·e. The second, on the contrary, presents ordinarily tho result of this (action du rnilieu.) central action, and in consequence is essentially variahl . "Conformably to these definitions, all mankind constitute hut a single species, although there arc amonrr them some different races; but these races can all be brought ba k to one and the same primitive type." 00 This explanation I deny in toto. M. Paul de R6musat, in ethnological studies no tyro, after stating both sides with fairness, and then concluding for his pari that "unity" is impossiblc,07 frankly inquires-" What, then, is this specific character? Can one give to species a clear and precise cl finition? Do there even necessarily exist 'spcci s,' as our minds arc prone to suppose? * * * whilst (forsooth) wo cannot come to a common understanding, either upon the m aning of the ·word 'sp cics,' nor determine a sign, r al and invariabl , of distinction between the rliffi rent classes called by this name"! Another of those clearsirrhtcd naturalists, trained at the Jardin des Plantes, whose sp cial gift it seems to pierce through mystiiications, started, ten years ago, a series of diflicultics about "species" which none but thorough-bred naturalists (not tho mere theological dilettante) arc competent to analyze or remove: nor will outsiders like mys lf fhil to be culightcncd, as well as amused, by whatever is s ·orcd by tho steel-tipped pen of M. G6rard.08 Again, Prof. Joseph Leidy,00 rcjcctinO' pr viouH definitions, observes that-" A species iB a mere convenient word with which naturalists empirically designate groups of organizccl beings possessing characters of comparative co11stancy, as far as ltistO? ·ic experience [precisely the criteria demand d (ubi supra) by Joh. Muller, and which both the IIumboldts acknowl clge to be, with respect to human origines, a powerless implement] has guided them iJ1 giving due weight to such constaucy. Accor_ding to t!)i? dofiuiti~n<: Prof.Loidycontinucs, "the races ofmcn arc ev1dcnUy dtstlnct spoc10s. VG M. ml QuATREFAOY.S, at tho Stance du 9 Juillet, 1847, of tho Sooi6t6 Ethnologi!).uo do Paris ( !Julleti•1, 'l'omo i., 1847; p. 287). 97 "DoH Rocos Jlumainos "-Revue des Deux !tfondc•, 15 Mai, 1854, pp. 788-804. 98 D'OrtniONY, Dictiormaire U11iv. d'Ili8toire Naturelle, Pnris, 1844, vol. V, Bub voce" E8- pboe," pp. 488-:-52. 00 NOT'I''S Appendix n. to Tile ]t(QTal Gild Intellectual Diver8ity ~( RaciUI, &c., from tho French of Do Oobinoau, by JI. l!otz, Philada., 12mo., 1856; pp. 480-1. |