{"collection":"aor","html_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/browse/aor/darwin/descent/dm07.htm","path":"aor/darwin/descent/dm07.htm","source_url":"https://sacred-texts.com/aor/darwin/descent/dm07.htm","text":"Chapter VII - On the Races of Man\n IT is not my intention here to describe the several so-called\nraces of men; but I am about to enquire what is the value of the\ndifferences between them under a classificatory point of view, and how\nthey have originated. In determining whether two or more allied\nforms ought to be ranked as species or varieties, naturalists are\npractically guided by the following considerations; namely, the amount\nof difference between them, and whether such differences relate to few\nor many points of structure, and whether they are of physiological\nimportance; but more especially whether they are constant. Constancy\nof character is what is chiefly valued and sought for by\nnaturalists. Whenever it can be shewn, or rendered probable, that\nthe forms in question have remained distinct for a long period, this\nbecomes an argument of much weight in favour of treating them as\nspecies. Even a slight degree of sterility between any two forms\nwhen first crossed, or in their offspring, is generally considered\nas a decisive test of their specific distinctness; and their continued\npersistence without blending within the same area, is usually accepted\nas sufficient evidence, either of some degree of mutual sterility,\nor in the case of animals of some mutual repugnance to pairing.\n Independently of fusion from intercrossing, the complete absence, in\na well-investigated region, of varieties linking together any two\nclosely-allied forms, is probably the most important of all the\ncriterions of their specific distinctness; and this is a somewhat\ndifferent consideration from mere constancy of character, for two\nforms may be highly variable and yet not yield intermediate varieties.\nGeographical distribution is often brought into play unconsciously and\nsometimes consciously; so that forms living in two widely separated\nareas, in which most of the other inhabitants are specifically\ndistinct, are themselves usually looked at as distinct; but in truth\nthis affords no aid in distinguishing geographical races from\nso-called good or true species.\n Now let us apply these generally-admitted principles to the\nraces of man, viewing him in the same spirit as a naturalist would any\nother animal. In regard to the amount of difference between the races,\nwe must make some allowance for our nice powers of discrimination\ngained by the long habit of observing ourselves. In India, as\nElphinstone remarks, although a newly-arrived European cannot at first\ndistinguish the various native races, yet they soon appear to him\nextremely dissimilar;* and the Hindoo cannot at first perceive any\ndifference between the several European nations. Even the most\ndistinct races of man are much more like each other in form than would\nat first be supposed; certain negro tribes must be excepted, whilst\nothers, as Dr. Rohlfs writes to me, and as I have myself seen, have\nCaucasian features. This general similarity is well shewn by the\nFrench photographs in the Collection Anthropologique du Museum de\nParis of the men belonging to various races, the greater number of\nwhich might pass for Europeans, as many persons to whom I have shewn\nthem have remarked. Nevertheless, these men, if seen alive, would\nundoubtedly appear very distinct, so that we are clearly much\ninfluenced in our judgment by the mere colour of the skin and hair, by\nslight differences in the features, and by expression.\n * History of India, 1841, vol. i., p. 323. Father Ripa makes exactly\nthe same remark with respect to the Chinese.\n There is, however, no doubt that the various races, when\ncarefully compared and measured, differ much from each other,- as in\nthe texture of the hair, the relative proportions of all parts of\nthe body,* the capacity of the lungs, the form and capacity of the\nskull, and even in the convolutions of the brain.*(2) But it would\nbe an endless task to specify the numerous points of difference. The\nraces differ also in constitution, in acclimatisation and in liability\nto certain diseases. Their mental characteristies are likewise very\ndistinct; chiefly as it would appear in their emotional, but partly in\ntheir intellectual faculties. Every one who has had the opportunity of\ncomparison, must have been struck with the contrast between the\ntaciturn, even morose, aborigines of S. America and the\nlighthearted, talkative negroes. There is a nearly similar contrast\nbetween the Malays and the Papuans,*(3) who live under the same\nphysical conditions, and are separated from each other only by a\nnarrow space of sea.\n * A vast number of measurements of whites, blacks, and Indians,\nare given in the Investigations in the Military and Anthropolog.\nStatistics of American Soldiers by B. A. Gould, 1869, pp. 298-358; \"On\nthe capacity of the lungs,\" p. 471. See also the numerous and valuable\ntables, by Dr. Weisbach, from the observations of Dr. Scherzer and Dr.\nSchwarz, in the Reise der Novara: Anthropolog. Theil, 1867.\n *(2) See, for instance, Mr. Marshall's account of the brain of a\nbushwoman, in Philosophical Transactions, 1864, p. 519.\n *(3) Wallace The Malay Archipelago, vol. ii., 1869, p. 178.\n We will first consider the arguments which may be advanced in favour\nof classing the races of man as distinct species, and then the\narguments on the other side. If a naturalist, who had never before\nseen a Negro, Hottentot, Australian, or Mongolian, were to compare\nthem, he would at once perceive that they differed in a multitude of\ncharacters, some of slight and some of considerable importance. On\nenquiry he would find that they were adapted to live under widely\ndifferent climates, and that they differed somewhat in bodily\nconstitution and mental disposition. If he were then told that\nhundreds of similar specimens could be brought from the same\ncountries, he would assuredly declare that they were as good species\nas many to which he had been in the habit of affixing specific\nnames. This conclusion would be greatly strengthened as soon as he had\nascertained that these forms had all retained the same character for\nmany centuries; and that negroes, apparently identical with existing\nnegroes, had lived at least 4000 years ago.* He would also hear, on\nthe authority of an excellent observer, Dr. Lund,*(2) that the human\nskulls found in the caves of Brazil entombed with many extinct\nmammals, belonged to the same type as that now prevailing throughout\nthe American continent.\n * With respect to the figures in the famous Egyptian caves of\nAbou-Simbel, M. Pouchet says (The Plurality of the Human Races, Eng.\ntranslat., 1864, p. 50), that he was far from finding recognisable\nrepresentations of the dozen or more nations which some authors\nbelieve that they can recognise. Even some of the most strongly-marked\nraces cannot be identified with that degree of unanimity which might\nhave been expected from what has been written on the subject. Thus\nMessrs. Nott and Gliddon (Types of Mankind, p. 148), state that\nRameses II, or the Great, has features superbly European; whereas\nKnox, another firm believer in the specific distinctness of the\nraces of man (Races of Man, 1850, p. 201), speaking of young Memnon\n(the same as Rameses II, as I am informed by Mr. Birch), insists in\nthe strongest manner that he is identical in character with the Jews\nof Antwerp. Again, when I looked at the statue of Amunoph III, I\nagreed with two officers of the establishment, both competent\njudges, that he had a strongly-marked negro type of features; but\nMessrs. Nott and Gliddon (ibid., p. 146, fig. 53), describe him as a\nhybrid, but not of \"negro intermixture.\"\n *(2) As quoted by Nott and Gliddon, Types of Mankind, 1854, p.\n439. They give also corroborative evidence; but C. Vogt thinks that\nthe subject requires further investigation.\n Our naturalist would then perhaps turn to geographical distribution,\nand he would probably declare that those forms must be distinct\nspecies, which differ not only in appearance, but are fitted for\nhot, as well as damp or dry countries, and for the arctic regions.\nHe might appeal to the fact that no species in the group next to\nman- namely, the Quadrumana, can resist a low temperature, or any\nconsiderable change of climate; and that the species which come\nnearest to man have never been reared to maturity, even under the\ntemperate climate of Europe. He would be deeply impressed with the\nfact, first noticed by Agassiz,* that the different races of man are\ndistributed over the world in the same zoological provinces, as\nthose inhabited by undoubtedly distinct species and genera of mammals.\nThis is manifestly the case with the Australian, Mongolian, and\nNegro races of man; in a less well-marked manner with the\nHottentots; but plainly with the Papuans and Malays, who are\nseparated, as Mr. Wallace has shewn, by nearly the same line which\ndivides the great Malayan and Australian zoological provinces. The\naborigines of America range throughout the continent; and this at\nfirst appears opposed to the above rule, for most of the productions\nof the Southern and Northern halves differ widely: yet some few living\nforms, as the opossum, range from the one into the other, as did\nformerly some of the gigantic Edentata. The Esquimaux, like other\narctic animals, extend round the whole polar regions. It should be\nobserved that the amount of difference between the mammals of the\nseveral zoological provinces does not correspond with the degree of\nseparation between the latter; so that it can hardly be considered\nas an anomaly that the Negro differs more, and the American much\nless from the other races of man, than do the mammals of the African\nand American continents from the mammals of the other provinces.\nMan, it may be added, does not appear to have aboriginally inhabited\nany oceanic island; and in this respect, he resembles the other\nmembers of his class.\n * \"Diversity of Origin of the Human Races,\" in the Christian\nExaminer, July, 1850.\n In determining whether the supposed varieties of the same kind of\ndomestic animal should be ranked as such, or as specifically distinct,\nthat is, whether any of them are descended from distinct wild species,\nevery naturalist would lay much stress on the fact of their external\nparasites being specifically distinct. All the more stress would be\nlaid on this fact, as it would be an exceptional one; for I am\ninformed by Mr. Denny that the most different kinds of dogs, fowls,\nand pigeons, in England, are infested by the same species of\nPediculi or lice. Now Mr. A. Murray has carefully examined the\nPediculi. collected in different countries from the different races of\nman;* and he finds that they differ, not only in colour, but in the\nstructure of their claws and limbs. In every case in which many\nspecimens were obtained the differences were constant. The surgeon\nof a whaling ship in the Pacific assured me that when the Pediculi,\nwith which some Sandwich Islanders on board swarmed, strayed on to the\nbodies of the English sailors, they died in the course of three or\nfour days. These Pediculi were darker coloured, and appeared different\nfrom those proper to the natives of Chiloe in South America, of\nwhich he gave me specimens. These, again, appeared larger and much\nsofter than European lice. Mr. Murray procured four kinds from Africa,\nnamely, from the Negroes of the Eastern and Western coasts, from the\nHottentots and Kaffirs; two kinds from the natives of Australia; two\nfrom North and two from South America. In these latter cases it may be\npresumed that the Pediculi came from natives inhabiting different\ndistricts. With insects slight structural differences, if constant,\nare generally esteemed of specific value: and the fact of the races of\nman being infested by parasites, which appear to be specifically\ndistinct, might fairly be urged as an argument that the races\nthemselves ought to be classed as distinct species.\n * Transactions of the Royal Society of Edinburgh, vol. xxii, 1861,\np. 567.\n Our supposed naturalist having proceeded thus far in his\ninvestigation, would next enquire whether the races of men, when\ncrossed, were in any degree sterile. He might consult the work* of\nProfessor Broca, a cautious and philosophical observer, and in this he\nwould find good evidence that some races were quite fertile\ntogether, but evidence of an opposite nature in regard to other races.\nThus it has been asserted that the native women of Australia and\nTasmania rarely produce children to European men; the evidence,\nhowever, on this head has now been shewn to be almost valueless. The\nhalf-castes are killed by the pure blacks: and an account has lately\nbeen published of eleven half-caste youths murdered and burnt at the\nsame time, whose remains were found by the police.*(2) Again, it has\noften been said that when mulattoes intermarry, they produce few\nchildren; on the other hand, Dr. Bachman, of Charleston,*(3)\npositively asserts that he has known mulatto families which have\nintermarried for several generations, and have continued on an average\nas fertile as either pure whites or pure blacks. Enquiries formerly\nmade by Sir C. Lyell on this subject led him, as he informs me, to the\nsame conclusion.*(4) In the United States the census for the year 1854\nincluded, according to Dr. Bachman, 405,751 mulattoes; and this\nnumber, considering all the circumstances of the case, seems small;\nbut it may partly be accounted for by the degraded and anomalous\nposition of the class, and by the profligacy of the women. A certain\namount of absorption of mulattoes into negroes must always be in\nprogress; and this would lead to an apparent diminution of the former.\nThe inferior vitality of mulattoes is spoken of in a trustworthy\nwork*(5) as a well-known phenomenon; and this, although a different\nconsideration from their lessened fertility, may perhaps be advanced\nas a proof of the specific distinctness of the parent races. No\ndoubt both animal and vegetable hybrids, when produced from\nextremely distinct species, are liable to premature death; but the\nparents of mulattoes cannot be put under the category of extremely\ndistinct species. The common mule, so notorious for long life and\nvigour, and yet so sterile, shews how little necessary connection\nthere is in hybrids between lessened fertility and vitality; other\nanalogous cases could be cited.\n * On the Phenomena of Hybridity in the Genus Homo, Eng. translat.,\n1864.\n *(2) See the interesting letter by Mr. T. A. Murray, in the\nAnthropological Review, April, 1868, p. liii. In this letter Count\nStrzelecki's statement that Australian women who have borne children\nto a white man, are afterwards sterile with their own race, is\ndisproved. M. A. de Quatrefages has also collected (Revue des Cours\nScientifiques, March, 1869, p. 239), much evidence that Australians\nand Europeans are not sterile when crossed.\n *(3) An Examination of Prof. Agassiz's Sketch of the Nat.\nProvinces of the Animal World, Charleston, 1855, p. 44.\n *(4) Dr. Rohlfs writes to me that he found the mixed races in the\nGreat Sahara, derived from Arabs, Berbers, and Negroes of three\ntribes, extraordinarily fertile. On the other hand, Mr. Winwood\nReade informs me that the Negroes on the Gold Coast, though admiring\nwhite men and mulattoes, have a maxim that mulattoes should not\nintermarry, as the children are few and sickly. This belief, as Mr.\nReade remarks, deserves attention, as white men have visited and\nresided on the Gold Coast for four hundred years, so that the\nnatives have had ample time to gain knowledge through experience.\n *(5) Military and Anthropological Statistics of American Soldiers,\nby B. A. Gould, 1869, p. 319.\n Even if it should hereafter be proved that all the races of men were\nperfectly fertile together, he who was inclined from other reasons\nto rank them as distinct species, might with justice argue that\nfertility and sterility are not safe criterions of specific\ndistinctness. We know that these qualities are easily affected by\nchanged conditions of life, or by close interbreeding, and that they\nare governed by highly complex laws, for instance, that of the unequal\nfertility of converse crosses between the same two species. With forms\nwhich must be ranked as undoubted species, a perfect series exists\nfrom those which are absolutely sterile when crossed, to those which\nare almost or completely fertile. The degrees of sterility do not\ncoincide strictly with the degrees of difference between the parents\nin external structures or habits of life. Man in many respects may\nbe compared with those animals which have long been domesticated,\nand a large body of evidence can be advanced in favour of the\nPallasian doctrine,* that domestication tends to eliminate the\nsterility which is so general a result of the crossing of species in a\nstate of nature. From these several considerations, it may be justly\nurged that the perfect fertility of the intercrossed races of man,\nif established, would not absolutely preclude us from ranking them\nas distinct species.\n * The Variation of Animals and Plants under Domestication, vol. ii\np. 109. I may here remind the reader that the sterility of species\nwhen crossed is not a specially acquired quality, but, like the\nincapacity of certain trees to be grafted together, is incidental on\nother acquired differences. The nature these differences is unknown,\nbut they relate more especially to the reproductive system, and much\nless so to external structure or to ordinary differences in\nconstitution. One important element in the sterility of crossed\nspecies apparently lies in one or both having been long habituated\nto fixed conditions; for we know that changed conditions have a\nspecial influence on the reproductive system, and we have good\nreason to believe (as before remarked) that the fluctuating conditions\nof domestication tend to eliminate that sterility which is so\ngeneral with species, in a natural state, when crossed. It has\nelsewhere been shewn by me (ibid., vol. ii., p. 185, and Origin of\nSpecies, (OOS), that the sterility of crossed species has not been\nacquired through natural selection: we can see that when two forms\nhave already been rendered very sterile, it is scarcely possible\nthat their sterility should be augmented by the preservation or\nsurvival of the more and more sterile individuals; for, as the\nsterility increases. fewer and fewer offspring will be produced from\nwhich to breed, and at last only single individuals will be produced\nat the rarest intervals. But there is even a higher grade of sterility\nthan this. Both Gartner and Kolreuter have proved that in genera of\nplants, including many species, a series can be formed from species\nwhich, when crossed, yield fewer and fewer seeds, to species which\nnever produce a single seed, but yet are affected by the pollen of the\nother species, as shewn by the swelling of the germen. It is here\nmanifestly impossible to select the more sterile individuals, which\nhave already ceased to yield seeds; so that the acme of sterility,\nwhen the germen alone is affected, cannot have been gained through\nselection. This acme, and no doubt the other grades of sterility,\nare the incidental results of certain unknown differences in the\nconstitution of the reproductive system of the species which are\ncrossed.\n Independently of fertility, the characters presented by the\noffspring from a cross have been thought to indicate whether or not\nthe parent-forms ought to be ranked as species or varieties; but after\ncarefully studying the evidence, I have come to the conclusion that no\ngeneral rules of this kind can be trusted. The ordinary result of a\ncross is the production of a blended or intermediate form; but in\ncertain cases some of the offspring take closely after one\nparent-form, and some after the other. This is especially apt to occur\nwhen the parents differ in characters which first appeared as sudden\nvariations or monstrosities.* I refer to this point, because Dr.\nRohlfs informs me that he has frequently seen in Africa the\noffspring of negroes crossed with members of other races, either\ncompletely black or completely white, or rarely piebald. On the\nother hand, it is notorious that in America mulattoes commonly present\nan intermediate appearance.\n * The Variation of Animals, &c., vol. ii., p. 92.\n We have now seen that a naturalist might feel himself fully\njustified in ranking the races of man as distinct species; for he\nhas found that they are distinguished by many differences in structure\nand constitution, some being of importance. These differences have,\nalso, remained nearly constant for very long periods of time. Our\nnaturalist will have been in some degree influenced by the enormous\nrange of man, which is a great anomaly in the class of mammals, if\nmankind be viewed as a single species. He will have been struck with\nthe distribution of the several so-called races, which accords with\nthat of other undoubtedly distinct species of mammals. Finally, he\nmight urge that the mutual fertility of all the races has not as yet\nbeen fully proved, and even if proved would not be an absolute proof\nof their specific identity.\n On the other side of the question, if our supposed naturalist were\nto enquire whether the forms of man keep distinct like ordinary\nspecies, when mingled together in large numbers in the same country,\nhe would immediately discover that this was by no means the case. In\nBrazil he would behold an immense mongrel population of Negroes and\nPortuguese; in Chiloe, and other parts of South America, he would\nbehold the whole population consisting of Indians and Spaniards\nblended in various degrees.* In many parts of the same continent he\nwould meet with the most complex crosses between Negroes, Indians, and\nEuropeans; and judging from the vegetable kingdom, such triple crosses\nafford the severest test of the mutual fertility of the parent\nforms. In one island of the Pacific he would find a small population\nof mingled Polynesian and English blood; and in the Fiji Archipelago a\npopulation of Polynesians and Negritos crossed in all degrees. Many\nanalogous cases could be added; for instance, in Africa. Hence the\nraces of man are not sufficiently distinct to inhabit the same country\nwithout fusion; and the absence of fusion affords the usual and best\ntest of specific distinctness.\n * M. de Quatrefages has given (Anthropological Review, Jan., 1869,\np. 22), an interesting account of the success and energy of the\nPaulistas in Brazil, who are a much crossed race of Portuguese and\nIndians, with a mixture of the blood of other races.\n Our naturalist would likewise be much disturbed as soon as he\nperceived that the distinctive characters of all the races were highly\nvariable. This fact strikes every one on first beholding the negro\nslaves in Brazil, who have been imported from all parts of Africa. The\nsame remark holds good with the Polynesians, and with many other\nraces. It may be doubted whether any character can be named which is\ndistinctive of a race and is constant. Savages, even within the limits\nof the same tribe, are not nearly so uniform in character, as has been\noften asserted. Hottentot women offer certain peculiarities, more\nstrongly marked than those occurring in any other race, but these\nare known not to be of constant occurrence. In the several American\ntribes, colour and hairiness differ considerably; as does colour to\na certain degree, and the shape of the features greatly, in the\nnegroes of Africa. The shape of the skull varies much in some\nraces;* and so it is with every other character. Now all naturalists\nhave learnt by dearly bought experience, how rash it is to attempt\nto define species by the aid of inconstant characters.\n * For instance, with the aborigines of America and Australia,\nProf. Huxley says (Transact. Internat. Congress of Prehist. Arch.,\n1868, p. 105), that the skulls of many South Germans and Swiss are \"as\nshort and as broad as those of the Tartars,\" &c.\n But the most weighty of all the arguments against treating the races\nof man as distinct species, is that they graduate into each other,\nindependently in many cases, as far as we can judge, of their having\nintercrossed. Man has been studied more carefully than any other\nanimal, and yet there is the greatest possible diversity amongst\ncapable judges whether he should be classed as a single species or\nrace, or as two (Virey), as three (Jacquinot), as four (Kant), five\n(Blumenbach), six (Buffon), seven (Hunter), eight (Agassiz), eleven\n(Pickering), fifteen (Bory de St-Vincent), sixteen (Desmoulins),\ntwenty-two (Morton), sixty (Crawfurd), or as sixty-three, according to\nBurke.* This diversity of judgment does not prove that the races ought\nnot to be ranked as species, but it shews that they graduate into each\nother, and that it is hardly possible to discover clear distinctive\ncharacters between them.\n * See a good discussion on this subject in Waitz, Introduction to\nAnthropology, Eng. translat., 1863, pp. 198-208, 227. I have taken\nsome of the above statements from H. Tuttle's Origin and Antiquity\nof Physical Man, Boston, 1866, p. 35.\n Every naturalist who has had the misfortune to undertake the\ndescription of a group of highly varying organisms, has encountered\ncases (I speak after experience) precisely like that of man; and if of\na cautious disposition, he will end by uniting all the forms which\ngraduate into each other, under a single species; for he will say to\nhimself that he has no right to give names to objects which he\ncannot define. Cases of this kind occur in the Order which include\nman, namely in certain genera of monkeys; whilst in other genera, as\nin Cercopithecus, most of the species can be determined with\ncertainty. In the American genus Cebus, the various forms are ranked\nby some naturalists as species, by others as mere geographical\nraces. Now if numerous specimens of Cebus were collected from all\nparts of South America, and those forms which at present appear to\nbe specifically distinct, were found to graduate into each other by\nclose steps, they would usually be ranked as mere varieties or\nraces; and this course has been followed by most naturalists with\nrespect to the races of man. Nevertheless, it must be confessed that\nthere are forms, at least in the vegetable kingdom,* which we cannot\navoid naming as species, but which are connected together by\nnumberless gradations, independently of intercrossing.\n * Prof. Nageli has carefully described several striking cases in his\nBotanische Mittheilungen, B. ii., 1866, ss. 294-369. Prof. Asa Gray\nhas made analogous remarks on some intermediate forms in the\nCompositae of N. America.\n Some naturalists have lately employed the term \"sub-species\" to\ndesignate forms which possess many of the characteristics of true\nspecies, but which hardly deserve so high a rank. Now if we reflect on\nthe weighty arguments above given, for raising the races of man to the\ndignity of species, and the insuperable difficulties on the other side\nin defining them, it seems that the term \"sub-species\" might here be\nused with propriety. But from long habit the term \"race\" will\nperhaps always be employed. The choice of terms is only so far\nimportant in that it is desirable to use, as far as possible, the same\nterms for the same degrees of difference. Unfortunately this can\nrarely be done: for the larger genera generally include closely-allied\nforms, which can be distinguished only with much difficulty, whilst\nthe smaller genera within the same family include forms that are\nperfectly distinct; yet all must be ranked equally as species. So\nagain, species within the same large genus by no means resemble each\nother to the same degree: on the contrary, some of them can\ngenerally be arranged in little groups round other species, like\nsatellites round planets.*\n * Origin of Species. (OOS)\n The question whether mankind consists of one or several species\nhas of late years been much discussed by anthropologists, who are\ndivided into the two schools of monogenists and polygenists. Those who\ndo not admit the principle of evolution, must look at species as\nseparate creations, or in some manner as distinct entities; and they\nmust decide what forms of man they will consider as species by the\nanalogy of the method commonly pursued in ranking other organic beings\nas species. But it is a hopeless endeavour to decide this point, until\nsome definition of the term \"species\" is generally accepted; and the\ndefinition must not include an indeterminate element such as an act of\ncreation. We might as well attempt without any definition to decide\nwhether a certain number of houses should be called a village, town,\nor city. We have a practical illustration of the difficulty in the\nnever-ending doubts whether many closely-allied mammals, birds,\ninsects, and plants, which represent each other respectively in\nNorth America and Europe, should be ranked as species or\ngeographical races; and the like holds true of the productions of many\nislands situated at some little distance from the nearest continent.\n Those naturalists, on the other hand, who admit the principle of\nevolution, and this is now admitted by the majority of rising men,\nwill feel no doubt that all the races of man are descended from a\nsingle primitive stock; whether or not they may think fit to designate\nthe races as distinct species, for the sake of expressing their amount\nof difference.* With our domestic animals the question whether the\nvarious races have arisen from one or more species is somewhat\ndifferent. Although it may be admitted that all the races, as well\nas all the natural species within the same genus, have sprung from the\nsame primitive stock, yet it is a fit subject for discussion,\nwhether all the domestic races of the dog, for instance, have acquired\ntheir present amount of difference since some one species was first\ndomesticated by man; or whether they owe some of their characters to\ninheritance from distinct species, which had already been\ndifferentiated in a state of nature. With man no such question can\narise, for he cannot be said to have been domesticated at any\nparticular period.\n * See Prof. Huxley to this effect in the Fortnightly Review, 1865,\np. 275.\n During an early stage in the divergence of the races of man from a\ncommon stock, the differences between the races and their number\nmust have been small; consequently as far as their distinguishing\ncharacters are concerned, they then had less claim to rank as distinct\nspecies than the existing so-called races. Nevertheless, so\narbitrary is the term of species, that such early races would\nperhaps have been ranked by some naturalists as distinct species, if\ntheir differences, although extremely slight, had been more constant\nthan they are at present, and had not graduated into each other.\n It is however possible, though far from probable, that the early\nprogenitors of man might formerly have diverged much in character,\nuntil they became more unlike each other than any now existing\nraces; but that subsequently, as suggested by Vogt,* they converged in\ncharacter. When man selects the offspring of two distinct species\nfor the same object, he sometimes induces a considerable amount of\nconvergence, as far as general appearance is concerned. This is the\ncase, as shown by von Nathusius,*(2) with the improved breeds of the\npig, which are descended from two distinct species; and in a less\nmarked manner with the improved breeds of cattle. A great anatomist,\nGratiolet, maintains that the anthropomorphous apes do not form a\nnatural sub-group; but that the orang is a highly developed gibbon\nor Semnopithecus, the chimpanzee a highly developed Macacus, and the\ngorilla a highly developed mandrill. If this conclusion, which rests\nalmost exclusively on brain-characters, be admitted, we should have\na case of convergence at least in external characters, for the\nanthropomorphous apes are certainly more like each other in many\npoints, than they are to other apes. All analogical resemblances, as\nof a whale to a fish, may indeed be said to be cases of convergence;\nbut this term has never been applied to superficial and adaptive\nresemblances. It would, however be extremely rash to attribute to\nconvergence close similarity of character in many points of\nstructure amongst the modified descendants of widely distinct\nbeings. The form of a crystal is determined solely by the molecular\nforces, and it is not surprising that dissimilar substances should\nsometimes assume the same form; but with organic beings we should bear\nin mind that the form of each depends on an infinity of complex\nrelations, namely on variations, due to causes far too intricate to be\nfollowed,- on the nature of the variations preserved, these\ndepending on the physical conditions, and still more on the\nsurrounding organisms which compete with each,- and lastly, on\ninheritance (in itself a fluctuating element) from innumerable\nprogenitors, all of which have had their forms determined through\nequally complex relations. It appears incredible that the modified\ndescendants of two organisms, if these differed from each other in a\nmarked manner, should ever afterwards converge so closely as to lead\nto a near approach to identity throughout their whole organisation. In\nthe case of the convergent races of pigs above referred to, evidence\nof their descent from two primitive stock is, according to von\nNathusius, still plainly retained, in certain bones of their skulls.\nIf the races of man had descended, as is supposed by some naturalists,\nfrom two or more species, which differed from each other as much, or\nnearly as much, as does the orang from the gorilla, it can hardly be\ndoubted that marked differences in the structure of certain bones\nwould still be discoverable in man as he now exists.\n * Lectures on Man, Eng. translat., 1864, p. 468.\n *(2) Die Rassen des Schweines, 1860, s. 46. Vorstudien fur\nGeschichte, &c., \"Schweinesschadel,\" 1864, s. 104. With respect to\ncattle, see M. de Quatrefages, Unite de l'Espece Humaine, 1861, p.\n119.\n Although the existing races of man differ in many respects, as in\ncolour, hair, shape of skull, proportions of the body, &c., yet if\ntheir whole structure be taken into consideration they are found to\nresemble each other closely in a multitude of points. Many of these\nare of so unimportant or of so singular a nature, that it is extremely\nimprobable that they should have been independently acquired by\naboriginally distinct species or races. The same remark holds good\nwith equal or greater force with respect to the numerous points of\nmental similarity between the most distinct races of man. The American\naborigines, Negroes and Europeans are as different from each other\nin mind as any three races that can be named; yet I was incessantly\nstruck, whilst living with the Feugians on board the Beagle, with\nthe many little traits of character, shewing how similar their minds\nwere to ours; and so it was with a full-blooded negro with whom I\nhappened once to be intimate.\n He who will read Mr. Tylor's and Sir J. Lubbock's interesting works*\ncan hardly fail to be deeply impressed with the close similarity\nbetween the men of all races in tastes, dispositions and habits.\nThis is shown by the pleasure which they all take in dancing, rude\nmusic, acting, painting, tattooing, and otherwise decorating\nthemselves; in their mutual comprehension of gesture-language, by\nthe same expression in their features, and by the same inarticulate\ncries, when excited by the same emotions. This similarity, or rather\nidentity, is striking, when contrasted with the different\nexpressions and cries made by distinct species of monkeys. There is\ngood evidence that the art of shooting with bows and arrows has not\nbeen handed down from any common progenitor of mankind, yet as\nWestropp and Nilsson have remarked,*(2) the stone arrow-heads, brought\nfrom the most distant parts of the world, and manufactured at the most\nremote periods, are almost identical; and this fact can only be\naccounted for by the various races having similar inventive or\nmental powers. The same observation has been made by\narchaeologists*(3) with respect to certain widely-prevalent ornaments,\nsuch as zig-zags, &c.; and with respect to various simple beliefs\nand customs, such as the burying of the dead under megalithic\nstructures. I remember observing in South America,*(4) that there,\nas in so many other parts of the world, men have generally chosen\nthe summits of lofty hills, to throw up piles of stones, either as a\nrecord of some remarkable event, or for burying their dead.\n * Tylor's Early History of Mankind, 1865: with respect to\ngesture-language, see p. 54. Lubbock's Prehistoric Times, 2nd ed.,\n1869.\n *(2) \"On Analogous Forms of Implements,\" in Memoirs of\nAnthropological Society by H. M. Westropp. The Primitive Inhabitants\nof Scandinavia, Eng. translat., edited by Sir J. Lubbock, 1868, p.\n104.\n *(3) Westropp \"On Cromlechs,\" &c., Journal of Ethnological Soc.,\nas given in Scientific Opinion, June 2, 1869, p. 3.\n *(4) Journal of Researches: Voyage of the Beagle, p. 46.\n Now when naturalists observe a close agreement in numerous small\ndetails of habits, tastes, and dispositions between two or more\ndomestic races, or between nearly-allied natural forms, they use\nthis fact as an argument that they are descended from a common\nprogenitor who was thus endowed; and consequently that all should be\nclassed under the same species. The same argument may be applied\nwith much force to the races of man.\n As it is improbable that the numerous and unimportant points of\nresemblance between the several races of man in bodily structure and\nmental faculties (I do not here refer to similar customs) should all\nhave been independently acquired, they must have been inherited from\nprogenitors who had these same characters. We thus gain some insight\ninto the early state of man, before he had spread step by step over\nthe face of the earth. The spreading of man to regions widely\nseparated by the sea, no doubt, preceded any great amount of\ndivergence of character in the several races; for otherwise we\nshould sometimes meet with the same race in distinct continents; and\nthis is never the case. Sir J. Lubbock, after comparing the arts now\npractised by savages in all parts of the world, specifies those\nwhich man could not have known, when he first wandered from his\noriginal birthplace; for if once learnt they would never have been\nforgotten.* He thus shews that \"the spear, which is but a\ndevelopment of the knife-point, and the club, which is but a long\nhammer, are the only things left.\" He admits, however, that the art of\nmaking fire probably had been already discovered, for it is common\nto all the races now existing, and was known to the ancient\ncave-inhabitants of Europe. Perhaps the art of making rude canoes or\nrafts was likewise known; but as man existed at a remote epoch, when\nthe land in many places stood at a very different level to what it\ndoes now, he would have been able, without the aid of canoes, to\nhave spread widely. Sir J. Lubbock further remarks how improbable it\nis that our earliest ancestors could have \"counted as high as ten,\nconsidering that so many races now in existence cannot get beyond\nfour.\" Nevertheless, at this early period, the intellectual and social\nfaculties of man could hardly have been inferior in any extreme degree\nto those possessed at present by the lowest savages; otherwise\nprimeval man could not have been so eminently successful in the\nstruggle for life, as proved by his early and wide diffusion.\n * Prehistoric Times, 1869, p. 574.\n From the fundamental differences between certain languages, some\nphilologists have inferred that when man first became widely diffused,\nhe was not a speaking animal; but it may be suspected that\nlanguages, far less perfect than any now spoken, aided by gestures,\nmight have been used, and yet have left no traces on subsequent and\nmore highly-developed tongues. Without the use of some language,\nhowever imperfect, it appears doubtful whether man's intellect could\nhave risen to the standard implied by his dominant position at an\nearly period.\n Whether primeval man, when he possessed but few arts, and those of\nthe rudest kind, and when his power of language was extremely\nimperfect, would have deserved to be called man, must depend on the\ndefinition which we employ. In a series of forms graduating insensibly\nfrom some ape-like creature to man as he now exists, it would be\nimpossible to fix on any definite point where the term \"man\" ought\nto be used. But this is a matter of very little importance. So\nagain, it is almost a matter of indifference whether the so-called\nraces of man are thus designated, or are ranked as species or\nsub-species; but the latter term appears the more appropriate.\nFinally, we may conclude that when the principle of evolution is\ngenerally accepted, as it surely will be before long, the dispute\nbetween the monogenists and the polygenists will die a silent and\nunobserved death.\n One other question ought not to be passed over without notice,\nnamely, whether, as is sometimes assumed, each sub-species or race\nof man has sprung from a single pair of progenitors. With our domestic\nanimals a new race can readily be formed by carefully matching the\nvarying offspring from a single pair, or even from a single individual\npossessing some new character; but most of our races have been formed,\nnot intentionally from a selected pair, but unconsciously by the\npreservation of many individuals which have varied, however\nslightly, in some useful or desired manner. If in one country stronger\nand heavier horses, and in another country lighter and fleeter ones,\nwere habitually preferred, we may feel sure that two distinct\nsub-breeds would be produced in the course of time, without any one\npair having been separated and bred from, in either country. Many\nraces have been thus formed, and their manner of formation is\nclosely analogous to that of natural species. We know, also, that\nthe horses taken to the Falkland Islands have, during successive\ngenerations, become smaller and weaker, whilst those which have run\nwild on the Pampas have acquired larger and coarser heads; and such\nchanges are manifestly due, not to any one pair, but to all the\nindividuals having been subjected to the same conditions, aided,\nperhaps, by the principle of reversion. The new sub-breeds in such\ncases are not descended from any single pair, but from many\nindividuals which have varied in different degrees, but in the same\ngeneral manner; and we may conclude that the races of man have been\nsimilarly produced, the modifications being either the direct result\nof exposure to different conditions, or the indirect result of some\nform of selection. But to this latter subject we shall presently\nreturn.\n On the Extinction of the Races of Man.- The partial or complete\nextinction of many races and sub-races of man is historically known.\nHumboldt saw in South America a parrot which was the sole living\ncreature that could speak a word of the language of a lost tribe.\nAncient monuments and stone implements found in all parts of the\nworld, about which no tradition has been preserved by the present\ninhabitants, indicate much extinction. Some small and broken tribes,\nremnants of former races, still survive in isolated and generally\nmountainous districts. In Europe the ancient races were all, according\nto Shaaffhausen,* \"lower in the scale than the rudest living savages\";\nthey must therefore have differed, to a certain extent, from any\nexisting race. The remains described by Professor Broca from Les\nEyzies, though they unfortunately appear to have belonged to a\nsingle family, indicate a race with a most singular combination of low\nor simious, and of high characteristics. This race is \"entirely\ndifferent from any other, ancient or modern, that we have heard\nof.\"*(2) It differed, therefore, from the quaternary race of the\ncaverns of Belgium.\n * Translation in Anthropological Review, Oct., 1868, p. 431.\n *(2) Transactions, International Congress of Prehistoric Archaeology\n1868, pp. 172-175. See also Broca (tr.) in Anthropological Review,\nOct., 1868, p. 410.\n Man can long resist conditions which appear extremely unfavourable\nfor his existence.* He has long lived in the extreme regions of the\nNorth, with no wood for his canoes or implements, and with only\nblubber as fuel, and melted snow as drink. In the southern extremity\nof America the Fuegians survive without the protection of clothes,\nor of any building worthy to be called a hovel. In South Africa the\naborigines wander over arid plains, where dangerous beasts abound. Man\ncan withstand the deadly influence of the Terai at the foot of the\nHimalaya, and the pestilential shores of tropical Africa.\n * Dr. Gerland, Uber das Aussterben der Naturvolker 1868, s. 82.\n Extinction follows chiefly from the competition of tribe with tribe,\nand race with race. Various checks are always in action, serving to\nkeep down the numbers of each savage tribe,- such as periodical\nfamines, nomadic habits and the consequent deaths of infants,\nprolonged suckling, wars, accidents, sickness, licentiousness, the\nstealing of women, infanticide, and especially lessened fertility.\nIf any one of these checks increases in power, even slightly, the\ntribe thus affected tends to decrease; and when of two adjoining\ntribes one becomes less numerous and less powerful than the other, the\ncontest is soon settled by war, slaughter, cannibalism, slavery, and\nabsorption. Even when a weaker tribe is not thus abruptly swept\naway, if it once begins to decrease, it generally goes on decreasing\nuntil it becomes extinct.*\n * Gerland, ibid., s. 12, gives facts in support of this statement.\n When civilised nations come into contact with barbarians the\nstruggle is short, except where a deadly climate gives its aid to\nthe native race. Of the causes which lead to the victory of\ncivilised nations, some are plain and simple, others complex and\nobscure. We can see that the cultivation of the land will be fatal\nin many ways to savages, for they cannot, or will not, change their\nhabits. New diseases and vices have in some cases proved highly\ndestructive; and it appears that a new disease often causes much\ndeath, until those who are most susceptible to its destructive\ninfluence are gradually weeded out;* and so it may be with the evil\neffects from spirituous liquors, as well as with the unconquerably\nstrong taste for them shewn by so many savages. It further appears,\nmysterious as is the fact, that the first meeting of distinct and\nseparated people generates disease.*(2) Mr. Sproat, who in Vancouver\nIsland closely attended to the subject of extinction, believed that\nchanged habits of life, consequent on the advent of Europeans, induces\nmuch ill health. He lays, also, great stress on the apparently\ntrifling cause that the natives become \"bewildered and dull by the new\nlife around them; they lose the motives for exertion, and get no new\nones in their place.\"*(3)\n * See remarks to this effect in Sir H. Holland's Medical Notes and\nReflections, 1839, p. 390.\n *(2) I have collected (Journal of Researches: Voyage of the\nBeagle, p. 435) a good many cases bearing on this subject; see also\nGerland, ibid., s. 8. Poeppig speaks of the \"breath of civilisation as\npoisonous to savages.\"\n *(3) Sproat, Scenes and Studies of Savage Life, 1868, p. 284.\n The grade of their civilisation seems to be a most important element\nin the success of competing nations. A few centuries ago Europe feared\nthe inroads of Eastern barbarians; now any such fear would be\nridiculous. It is a more curious fact, as Mr. Bagehot has remarked,\nthat savages did not formerly waste away before the classical nations,\nas they now do before modern civilised nations; had they done so,\nthe old moralists would have mused over the event; but there is no\nlament in any writer of that period over the perishing barbarians.*\nThe most potent of all the causes of extinction, appears in many cases\nto be lessened fertility and ill-health, especially amongst the\nchildren, arising from changed conditions of life, notwithstanding\nthat the new conditions may not be injurious in themselves. I am\nmuch indebted to Mr. H. H. Howorth for having called my attention\nto this subject, and for having given me information respecting it.\nI have collected the following cases.\n * Bagehot, \"Physics and Politics,\" Fortnightly Review, April 1,\n1868, p. 455.\n When Tasmania was first colonised the natives were roughly estimated\nby some at 7000 and by others at 20,000. Their number was soon greatly\nreduced, chiefly by fighting with the English and with each other.\nAfter the famous hunt by all the colonists, when the remaining natives\ndelivered themselves up to the government, they consisted only of\n120 individuals,* who were in 1832 transported to Flinders Island.\nThis island, situated between Tasmania and Australia, is forty miles\nlong, and from twelve to eighteen miles broad: it seems healthy, and\nthe natives were well treated. Nevertheless, they suffered greatly\nin health. In 1834 they consisted (Bonwick, p. 250) of forty-seven\nadult males, forty-eight adult females, and sixteen children, or in\nall of 111 souls. In 1835 only one hundred were left. As they\ncontinued rapidly to decrease, and as they themselves thought that\nthey should not perish so quickly elsewhere, they were removed in 1847\nto Oyster Cove in the southern part of Tasmania. They then consisted\n(Dec. 20th, 1847) of fourteen men, twenty-two women and ten\nchildren.*(2) But the change of site did no good. Disease and death\nstill pursued them, and in 1864 one man (who died in 1869), and\nthree elderly women alone survived. The infertility of the women is\neven a more remarkable fact than the liability of all to ill-health\nand death. At the time when only nine women were left at Oyster\nCove, they told Mr. Bonwick (p. 386), that only two had ever borne\nchildren: and these two had together produced only three children!\n * All the statements here given are taken from The Last of the\nTasmanians, by J. Bonwick, 1870.\n *(2) This is the statement of the Governor of Tasmania, Sir W.\nDenison, Varieties of Vice-Regal Life, 1870, vol. i., p. 67.\n With respect to the cause of this extraordinary state of things, Dr.\nStory remarks that death followed the attempts to civilise the\nnatives. \"If left to themselves to roam as they were wont and\nundisturbed, they would have reared more children, and there would\nhave been less mortality.\" Another careful observer of the natives,\nMr. Davis, remarks, \"The births have been few and the deaths numerous.\nThis may have been in a great measure owing to their change of\nliving and food; but more so to their banishment from the mainland\nof Van Diemen's Land, and consequent depression of spirits\"\n(Bonwick, pp. 388, 390).\n Similar facts have been observed in two widely different parts of\nAustralia. The celebrated explorer, Mr. Gregory, told Mr. Bonwick,\nthat in Queensland \"the want of reproduction was being already felt\nwith the blacks, even in the most recently settled parts, and that\ndecay would set in.\" Of thirteen aborigines from Shark's Bay who\nvisited Murchison River, twelve died of consumption within three\nmonths.*\n * For these cases, see Bonwick's Daily Life of the Tasmanians, 1870,\np. 90: and The Last of the Tasmanians, 1870, p. 386.\n The decrease of the Maories of New Zealand has been carefully\ninvestigated by Mr. Fenton, in an admirable report, from which all the\nfollowing statements, with one exception, are taken.* The decrease\nin number since 1830 is admitted by every one, including the natives\nthemselves, and is still steadily progressing. Although it has\nhitherto been found impossible to take an actual census of the\nnatives, their numbers were carefully estimated by residents in many\ndistricts. The result seems trustworthy, and shows that during the\nfourteen years, previous to 1858, the decrease was 19.42 per cent.\nSome of the tribes, thus carefully examined, lived above a hundred\nmiles apart, some on the coast, some inland; and their means of\nsubsistence and habits differed to a certain extent (p. 28). The total\nnumber in 1858 was believed to be 53,700, and in 1872, after a\nsecond interval of fourteen years, another census was taken, and the\nnumber is given as only 36,359, shewing a decrease of 32.29 per\ncent!*(2) Mr. Fenton, after shewing in detail the insufficiency of the\nvarious causes, usually assigned in explanation of this\nextraordinary decrease, such as new diseases, the profligacy of the\nwomen, drunkenness, wars, &c., concludes on weighty grounds that it\ndepends chiefly on the unproductiveness of the women, and on the\nextraordinary mortality of the young children (pp. 31, 34). In proof\nof this he shews (p. 33) that in 1844 there was one non-adult for\nevery 2.57 adults; whereas in 1858 there was only one non-adult for\nevery 3.27 adults. The mortality of the adults is also great. He\nadduces as a further cause of the decrease the inequality of the\nsexes; for fewer females are born than males. To this latter point,\ndepending perhaps on a widely distinct cause, I shall return in a\nfuture chapter. Mr. Fenton contrasts with astonishment the decrease in\nNew Zealand with the increase in Ireland; countries not very\ndissimilar in climate, and where the inhabitants now follow nearly\nsimilar habits. The Maories themselves (p. 35) \"attribute their\ndecadence, in some measure, to the introduction of new food and\nclothing, and the attendant change of habits\"; and it will be seen,\nwhen we consider the influence of changed conditions on fertility,\nthat they are probably right. The diminution began between the years\n1830 and 1840; and Mr. Fenton shews (p. 40) that about 1830, the art\nof manufacturing putrid corn (maize), by long steeping in water, was\ndiscovered and largely practised; and this proves that a change of\nhabits was beginning amongst the natives, even when New Zealand was\nonly thinly inhabited by Europeans. When I visited the Bay of\nIslands in 1835, the dress and food of the inhabitants had already\nbeen much modified: they raised potatoes, maize, and other\nagricultural produce, and exchanged them for English manufactured\ngoods and tobacco.\n * Observations on the Aboriginal Inhabitants of New Zealand,\npublished by the Government, 1859.\n *(2) New Zealand, by Alex. Kennedy, 1873, p. 47.\n It is evident from many statements in the life of Bishop\nPatteson,* that the Melanesians of the New Hebrides and neighbouring\narchipelagoes, suffered to an extraordinary degree in health, and\nperished in large numbers, when they were removed to New Zealand,\nNorfolk Island, and other salubrious places, in order to be educated\nas missionaries.\n * Life of J. C. Patteson, by C. M. Younge, 1874; see more especially\nvol. i., p. 530.\n The decrease of the native population of the Sandwich Islands is\nas notorious as that of New Zealand. It has been roughly estimated\nby those best capable of judging, that when Cook discovered the\nislands in 1779, the population amounted to about 300,000. According\nto a loose census in 1823, the numbers then were 142,050. In 1832, and\nat several subsequent periods, an accurate census was officially\ntaken, but I have been able to obtain only the following returns:\n Native Population Annual rate of decrease\n per cent, assuming it to\n (Except during 1832 and have been uniform between\n 1836, when the few the successive censuses;\n foreigners in the islands these censuses being taken\n Year were included.) at irregular intervals.\n 1832 130,313\n 4.46\n 1836 108,579\n 2.47\n 1853 71,019\n 0.81\n 1860 67,084\n 2.18\n 1866 58,765\n 2.17\n 1872 51,531\n We here see that in the interval of forty years, between 1832 and\n1872, the population has decreased no less than sixty-eight per\ncent! This has been attributed by most writers to the profligacy of\nthe women, to former bloody wars, and to the severe labour imposed\non conquered tribes and to newly introduced diseases, which have\nbeen on several occasions extremely destructive. No doubt these and\nother such causes have been highly efficient, and may account for\nthe extraordinary rate of decrease between the years 1832 and 1836;\nbut the most potent of all the causes seems to be lessened\nfertility. According to Dr. Ruschenberger of the U. S. Navy, who\nvisited these islands between 1835 and 1837, in one district of\nHawaii, only twenty-five men out of 1134, and in another district only\nten out of 637, had a family with as many as three children. Of eighty\nmarried women, only thirty-nine had ever borne children; and \"the\nofficial report gives an average of half a child to each married\ncouple in the whole island.\" This is almost exactly the same average\nas with the Tasmanians at Oyster Cove. Jarves, who published his\nHistory in 1843, says that \"families who have three children are freed\nfrom all taxes; those having more, are rewarded by gifts of land and\nother encouragements.\" This unparalleled enactment by the government\nwell shews how infertile the race had become. The Rev. A. Bishop\nstated in the Hawaiian Spectator in 1839, that a large proportion of\nthe children die at early ages, and Bishop Staley informs me that this\nis still the case, just as in New Zealand. This has been attributed to\nthe neglect of the children by the women, but it is probably in\nlarge part due to innate weakness of constitution in the children,\nin relation to the lessened fertility of their parents. There is,\nmoreover, a further resemblance to the case of New Zealand, in the\nfact that there is a large excess of male over female births: the\ncensus of 1872 gives 31,650 males to 25,247 females of all ages,\nthat is 125.36 males for every 100 females; whereas in all civilised\ncountries the females exceed the males. No doubt the profligacy of the\nwomen may in part account for their small fertility; but their changed\nhabits of life is a much more probable cause, and which will at the\nsame time account for the increased mortality, especially of the\nchildren. The islands were visited by Cook in 1779, Vancouver in 1794,\nand often subsequently by whalers. In 1819 missionaries arrived, and\nfound that idolatry had been already abolished and other changes\neffected by the king. After this period there was a rapid change in\nalmost all the habits of life of the natives, and they soon became\n\"the most civilised of the Pacific Islanders.\" One of my informants,\nMr. Coan, who was born on the islands, remarks that the natives have\nundergone a greater change in their habits of life in the course of\nfifty years than Englishmen during a thousand years. From\ninformation received from Bishop Staley, it does not appear that the\npoorer classes have ever much changed their diet, although many new\nkinds of fruit have been introduced, and the sugar-cane is in\nuniversal use. Owing, however, to their passion for imitating\nEuropeans, they altered their manner of dressing at an early period,\nand the use of alcoholic drinks became very general. Although these\nchanges appear inconsiderable, I can well believe, from what is\nknown with respect to animals, that they might suffice to lessen the\nfertility of the natives.*\n * The foregoing statements are taken chiefly from the following\nworks: Jarves' History of the Hawaiian Islands, 1843, pp. 400-407.\nCheever, Life in the Sandwich Islands, 1851, p. 277. Ruschenberger\nis quoted by Bonwick, Last of the Tasmanians, 1870, p. 378. Bishop\nis quoted by Sir E. Belcher, Voyage Round the World, 1843, vol. i., p.\n272. I owe the census of the several years to the kindness of Mr.\nCoan, at the request of Dr. Youmans of New York; and in most cases I\nhave compared the Youmans figures with those given in several of the\nabove-named works. I have omitted the census for 1850, as I have\nseen two widely different numbers given.\n Lastly, Mr. Macnamara states* that the low and degraded\ninhabitants of the Andaman Islands, on the eastern side of the Gulf of\nBengal, are \"eminently susceptible to any change of climate: in\nfact, take them away from their island homes, and they are almost\ncertain to die, and that independently of diet or extraneous\ninfluences.\" He further states that the inhabitants of the Valley of\nNepal, which is extremely hot in summer, and also the various\nhill-tribes of India, suffer from dysentery and fever when on the\nplains; and they die if they attempt to pass the whole year there.\n * The Indian Medical Gazette, Nov. 1, 1871, p. 240.\n We thus see that many of the wilder races of man are apt to suffer\nmuch in health when subjected to changed conditions or habits of life,\nand not exclusively from being transported to a new climate. Mere\nalterations in habits, which do not appear injurious in themselves,\nseem to have this same effect; and in several cases the children are\nparticularly liable to suffer. It has often been said, as Mr.\nMacnamara remarks, that man can resist with impunity the greatest\ndiversities of climate and other changes; but this is true only of the\ncivilised races. Man in his wild condition seems to be in this respect\nalmost as susceptible as his nearest allies, the anthropoid apes,\nwhich have never yet survived long, when removed from their native\ncountry.\n Lessened fertility from changed conditions, as in the case of the\nTasmanians, Maories, Sandwich Islanders, and apparently the\nAustralians, is still more interesting than their liability to\nill-health and death; for even a slight degree of infertility,\ncombined with those other causes which tend to check the increase of\nevery population, would sooner or later lead to extinction. The\ndiminution of fertility may be explained in some cases by the\nprofligacy of the women (as until lately with the Tahitians), but\nMr. Fenton has shewn that this explanation by no means suffices with\nthe New Zealanders, nor does it with the Tasmanians.\n In the paper above quoted, Mr. Macnamara gives reasons for believing\nthat the inhabitants of districts subject to malaria are apt to be\nsterile; but this cannot apply in several of the above cases. Some\nwriters have suggested that the aborigines of islands have suffered in\nfertility and health from long continued interbreeding; but in the\nabove cases infertility has coincided too closely with the arrival\nof Europeans for us to admit this explanation. Nor have we at\npresent any reason to believe that man is highly sensitive to the evil\neffects of inter-breeding, especially in areas so large as New\nZealand, and the Sandwich archipelago with its diversified stations.\nOn the contrary, it is known that the present inhabitants of Norfolk\nIsland are nearly all cousins or near relations, as are the Todas in\nIndia, and the inhabitants of some of the Western Islands of Scotland;\nand yet they seem not to have suffered in fertility.*\n * On the close relationship of the Norfolk Islanders, Sir W.\nDenison, Varieties of Vice-Regal Life: vol. i., 1870, p. 410. For\nthe Todas, see Col. Marshall's work 1873, p. 110. For the Western\nIslands of Scotland, Dr. Mitchell, Edinburgh Medical Journal, March to\nJune, 1865.\n A much more probable view is suggested by the analogy of the lower\nanimals. The reproductive system can be shewn to be susceptible to\nan extraordinary degree (though why we know not) to changed conditions\nof life; and this susceptibility leads both to beneficial and to\nevil results. A large collection of facts on this subject is given\nin chap. xviii. of vol. ii. of my Variation of Animals and Plants\nunder Domestication, I can here give only the briefest abstract; and\nevery one interested in the subject may consult the above work. Very\nslight changes increase the health, vigour, and fertility of most or\nall organic beings, whilst other changes are known to render a large\nnumber of animals sterile. One of the most familiar cases, is that\nof tamed elephants not breeding in India; though they often breed in\nAva, where the females are allowed to roam about the forests to some\nextent, and are thus placed under more natural conditions. The case of\nvarious American monkeys, both sexes of which have been kept for\nmany years together in their own countries, and yet have very rarely\nor never bred, is a more apposite instance, because of their\nrelationship to man. It is remarkable how slight a change in the\nconditions often induces sterility in a wild animal when captured; and\nthis is the more strange as all our domesticated animals have become\nmore fertile than they were in a state of nature; and some of them can\nresist the most unnatural conditions with undiminished fertility.*\nCertain groups of animals are much more liable than others to be\naffected by captivity; and generally all the species of the same group\nare affected in the same manner. But sometimes a single species in a\ngroup is rendered sterile, whilst the others are not so; on the\nother hand, a single species may retain its fertility whilst most of\nthe others fail to breed. The males and females of some species when\nconfined, or when allowed to live almost, but not quite free, in their\nnative country, never unite; others thus circumstanced frequently\nunite but never produce offspring; others again produce some\noffspring, but fewer than in a state of nature; and as bearing on\nthe above cases of man, it is important to remark that the young are\napt to be weak and sickly, or malformed, and to perish at an early\nage.\n * For the evidence on this head, see Variation of Animals, &c., vol.\nii., p. 111.\n Seeing how general is this law of the susceptibility of the\nreproductive system to changed conditions of life, and that it holds\ngood with our nearest allies, the Quadrumana, I can hardly doubt\nthat it applies to man in his primeval state. Hence if savages of\nany race are induced suddenly to change their habits of life, they\nbecome more or less sterile, and their young offspring suffer in\nhealth, in the same manner and from the same cause, as do the elephant\nand hunting-leopard in India, many monkeys in America, and a host of\nanimals of all kinds, on removal from their natural conditions.\n We can see why it is that aborigines, who have long inhabited\nislands, and who must have been long exposed to nearly uniform\nconditions, should be specially affected by any change in their\nhabits, as seems to be the case. Civilised races can certainly\nresist changes of all kinds far better than savages; and in this\nrespect they resemble domesticated animals, for though the latter\nsometimes suffer in health (for instance European dogs in India),\nyet they are rarely rendered sterile, though a few such instances have\nbeen recorded.* The immunity of civilised races and domesticated\nanimals is probably due to their having been subjected to a greater\nextent, and therefore having grown somewhat more accustomed, to\ndiversified or varying conditions, than the majority of wild\nanimals; and to their having formerly immigrated or been carried\nfrom country to country, and to different families or subraces\nhaving inter-crossed. It appears that a cross with civilised races\nat once gives to an aboriginal race an immunity from the evil\nconsequences of changed conditions. Thus the crossed offspring from\nthe Tahitians and English, when settled in Pitcairn Island,\nincreased so rapidly that the island was soon overstocked; and in June\n1856 they were removed to Norfolk Island. They then consisted of 60\nmarried persons and 134 children, making a total of 194. Here they\nlikewise increased so rapidly, that although sixteen of them\nreturned to Pitcairn Island in 1859, they numbered in January 1868,\n300 souls; the males and females being in exactly equal numbers.\nWhat a contrast does this case present with that of the Tasmanians;\nthe Norfolk Islanders increased in only twelve and a half years from\n194 to 300; whereas the Tasmanians decreased during fifteen years from\n120 to 46, of which latter number only ten were children.*(2)\n * Variation of Animals, &c., vol. ii., p. 16.\n *(2) These details are taken from The Mutineers of the Bounty, by\nLady Belcher, 1870; and from Pitcairn Island, ordered to be printed by\nthe House of Commons, May 29, 1863. The following statements about the\nSandwich Islanders are from the Honolulu Gazette, and from Mr. Coan.\n So again in the interval between the census of 1866 and 1872 the\nnatives of full blood in the Sandwich Islands decreased by 8081,\nwhilst the half-castes, who are believed to be healthier, increased by\n847; but I do not know whether the latter number includes the\noffspring from the half-castes, or only the half-castes of the first\ngeneration.\n The cases which I have here given all relate to aborigines, who have\nbeen subjected to new conditions as the result of the immigration of\ncivilised men. But sterility and ill-health would probably follow,\nif savages were compelled by any cause, such as the inroad of a\nconquering tribe, to desert their homes and to change their habits. It\nis an interesting circumstance that the chief check to wild animals\nbecoming domesticated, which implies the power of their breeding\nfreely when first captured, and one chief check to wild men, when\nbrought into contact with civilisation, surviving to form a\ncivilised race, is the same, namely, sterility from changed conditions\nof life.\n Finally, although the gradual decrease and ultimate extinction of\nthe races of man is a highly complex problem, depending on many causes\nwhich differ in different places and at different times; it is the\nsame problem as that presented by the extinction of one of the\nhigher animals- of the fossil horse, for instance, which disappeared\nfrom South America, soon afterwards to be replaced, within the same\ndistricts, by countless troups of the Spanish horse. The New Zealander\nseems conscious of this parallelism, for he compares his future fate\nwith that of the native rat now almost exterminated by the European\nrat. Though the difficulty is great to our imagination, and really\ngreat, if we wish to ascertain the precise causes and their manner\nof action, it ought not to be so to our reason, as long as we keep\nsteadily in mind that the increase of each species and each race is\nconstantly checked in various ways; so that if any new check, even a\nslight one, be superadded, the race will surely decrease in number;\nand decreasing numbers will sooner or later lead to extinction; the\nend, in most cases, being promptly determined by the inroads of\nconquering tribes.\n On the Formation of the Races of Man.- In some cases the crossing of\ndistinct races has led to the formation of a new race. The singular\nfact that the Europeans and Hindoos, who belong to the same Aryan\nstock, and speak a language fundamentally the same, differ widely in\nappearance, whilst Europeans differ but little from Jews, who belong\nto the Semitic stock, and speak quite another language, has been\naccounted for by Broca,* through certain Aryan branches having been\nlargely crossed by indigenous tribes during their wide diffusion. When\ntwo races in close contact cross, the first result is a\nheterogeneous mixture: thus Mr. Hunter, in describing the Santali orhill-tribes of India, says that hundreds of imperceptible gradations\nmay be traced \"from the black, squat tribes of the mountains to the\ntall olive-coloured Brahman, with his intellectual brow, calm eyes,\nand high but narrow head\"; so that it is necessary in courts of\njustice to ask the witnesses whether they are Santalis or Hindoos.*(2)\nWhether a heterogeneous people, such as the inhabitants of some of the\nPolynesian islands, formed by the crossing of two distinct races, with\nfew or no pure members left, would ever become homogeneous, is not\nknown from direct evidence. But as with our domesticated animals, a\ncross-breed can certainly be fixed and made uniform by careful\nselection*(3) in the course of a few generations, we may infer that\nthe free inter-crossing of a heterogeneous mixture during a long\ndescent would supply the place of selection, and overcome any tendency\nto reversion; so that the crossed race would ultimately become\nhomogeneous, though it might not partake in an equal degree of the\ncharacters of the two parent-races.\n * \"On Anthropology,\" translation, Anthropological Review, Jan.,\n1868, p. 38.\n *(2) The Animals of Rural Bengal, 1868, p. 134.\n *(3) The Variation of Animals and Plants under Domestication vol.\nii., p. 95.\n Of all the differences between the races of man, the colour of the\nskin is the most conspicuous and one of the best marked. It was\nformerly thought that differences of this kind could be accounted\nfor by long exposure to different climates; but Pallas first shewed\nthat this is not tenable, and he has since been followed by almost all\nanthropologists.* This view has been rejected chiefly because the\ndistribution of the variously coloured races, most of whom have long\ninhabited their present homes, does not coincide with corresponding\ndifferences of climate. Some little weight may be given to such\ncases as that of the Dutch families, who, as we hear on excellent\nauthority,*(2) have not undergone the least change of colour after\nresiding for three centuries in South Africa. An argument on the\nsame side may likewise be drawn from the uniform appearance in various\nparts of the world of gipsies and Jews, though the uniformity of the\nlatter has been somewhat exaggerated.*(3) A very damp or a very dry\natmosphere has been supposed to be more influential in modifying the\ncolour of the skin than mere heat; but as D'Orbigny in South\nAmerica, and Livingstone in Africa, arrived at diametrically\nopposite conclusions with respect to dampness and dryness, any\nconclusion on this head must be considered as very doubtful.*(4)\n * Pallas, Act. Acad. St. Petersburg, 1780, part ii., p. 69. He was\nfollowed by Rudolphi, in his Beitrage zur Anthropologie, 1812. An\nexcellent summary of the evidence is given by Godron, De l'Espece,\n1859, vol. ii., p. 246, &c.\n *(2) Sir Andrew Smith, as quoted by Knox, Races of Man, 1850, p.\n473.\n *(3) See De Quatrefages on this head, Revue des Cours Scientifiques,\nOct. 17, 1868, p. 731.\n *(4) Livingstone's Travels and Researches in S. Africa, 1857, pp.\n338, 339. D'Orbigny, as quoted by Godron, De l'Espece, vol. ii., p.\n266.\n Various facts, which I have given elsewhere, prove that the colour\nof the skin and hair is sometimes correlated in a surprising manner\nwith a complete immunity from the action of certain vegetable poisons,\nand from the attacks of certain parasites. Hence it occurred to me,\nthat negroes and other dark races might have acquired their dark tints\nby the darker individuals escaping from the deadly influence of the\nmiasma of their native countries, during a long series of generations.\n I afterwards found that this same idea had long ago occurred to\nDr. Wells.* It has long been known that negroes, and even mulattoes\nare almost completely exempt from the yellow fever, so destructive\nin tropical America.*(2) They likewise escape to a large extent the\nfatal intermittent fevers, that prevail along at least 2600 miles of\nthe shores of Africa, and which annually cause one-fifth of the\nwhite settlers to die, and another fifth to return home invalided.*(3)\nThis immunity in the negro seems to be partly inherent, depending on\nsome unknown peculiarity of constitution, and partly the result of\nacclimatisation. Pouchet*(4) states that the negro regiments recruited\nnear the Soudan, and borrowed from the Viceroy of Egypt for the\nMexican war, escaped the yellow fever almost equally with the\nnegroes originally brought from various parts of Africa and accustomed\nto the climate of the West Indies. That acclimatisation plays a\npart, is shewn by the many cases in which negroes have become somewhat\nliable to tropical fevers, after having resided for some time in a\ncolder climate.*(5) The nature of the climate under which the white\nraces have long resided likewise has some influence on them; for\nduring the fearful epidemic of yellow fever in Demerara during 1837,\nDr. Blair found that the death-rate of the immigrants was proportional\nto the latitude of the country whence they had come. With the negro\nthe immunity, as far as it is the result of acclimatisation, implies\nexposure during a prodigious length of time; for the aborigines of\ntropical America who have resided there from time immemorial, are\nnot exempt from yellow fever; and the Rev. H. B. Tristram states, that\nthere are districts in nothern Africa which the native inhabitants are\ncompelled annually to leave, though the negroes can remain with\nsafety.\n * See a paper read before the Royal Soc. in 1813, and published in\nhis Essays in 1818. I have given an account of Dr. Wells' views in the\n\"Historical Sketch\" (p. 2) to my Origin of Species. Various cases of\ncolour correlated with constitutional peculiarities are given in my\nVariation of Animals and Plants under Domestication, vol. ii., pp.\n227, 335.\n *(2) See, for instance, Nott and Gliddon, Types of Mankind, p. 68.\n *(3) Major Tulloch in a paper read before the Statistical Society,\nApril 20, 1840, and given in the Athenaeum, 1840, p. 353.\n *(4) The Plurality of the Human Race (translat.), 1864, p. 60.\n *(5) Quartrefages, Unite de l'Espece Humaine, 1861, p. 205. Wartz,\nIntroduction to Anthropology, translat., vol. i., 1863, p. 124.\nLivingstone gives analogous cases in his Travels.\n That the immunity of the negro is in any degree correlated with\nthe colour of his skin is a mere conjecture: it may be correlated with\nsome difference in his blood, nervous system, or other tissues.\nNevertheless, from the facts above alluded to, and from some\nconnection apparently existing between complexion and a tendency to\nconsumption, the conjecture seemed to me not improbable.\nConsequently I endeavoured, with but little success,* to ascertain how\nfar it holds good. The late Dr. Daniell, who had long lived on the\nwest coast of Africa, told me that he did not believe in any such\nrelation. He was himself unusually fair, and had withstood the climate\nin a wonderful manner. When he first arrived as a boy on the coast, an\nold and experienced negro chief predicted from his appearance that\nthis would prove the case. Dr. Nicholson, of Antigua, after having\nattended to this subject, writes to me that dark-coloured Europeans\nescape the yellow fever more than those that are light-coloured. Mr.\nJ. M. Harris altogether denies that Europeans with dark hair withstand\na hot climate better than other men: on the contrary, experience has\ntaught him in making a selection of men for service on the coast of\nAfrica, to choose those with red hair.*(2) As far, therefore, as these\nslight indications go, there seems no foundation for the hypothesis,\nthat blackness has resulted from the darker and darker individuals\nhaving survived better during long exposure to fever-generating\nmiasma.\n * In the spring of 1862 I obtained permission from the\nDirector-General of the Medical department of the Army, to transmit to\nthe surgeons of the various regiments on foreign service a blank\ntable, with the following appended remarks, but I have received no\nreturns. \"As several well-marked cases have been recorded with our\ndomestic animals of a relation between the colour of the dermal\nappendages and the constitution; and it being notorious that there\nis some limited degree of relation between the colour of the races\nof man and the climate inhabited by them; the following\ninvestigation seems worth consideration. Namely, whether there is\nany relation in Europeans between the colour of their hair, and\ntheir liability to the diseases of tropical countries. If the surgeons\nof the several regiments, when stationed in unhealthy tropical\ndistricts, would be so good as first to count, as a standard of\ncomparison, how many men, in the force whence the sick are drawn, have\ndark and light-coloured hair, and hair of intermediate or doubtful\ntints; and if a similar account were kept by the same medical\ngentlemen, of all the men who suffered from malarious and yellow\nfevers, or from dysentery, it would soon be apparent, after some\nthousand cases had been tabulated, whether there exists any relation\nbetween the colour of the hair and constitutional liability to\ntropical diseases. Perhaps no such relation would be discovered, but\nthe investigation is well worth making. In case any positive result\nwere obtained, it might be of some practical use in selecting men\nfor any particular service. Theoretically the result would be of\nhigh interest, as indicating one means by which a race of men\ninhabiting from a remote period an unhealthy tropical climate, might\nhave become dark-coloured by the better preservation of dark-haired or\ndark-complexioned individuals during a long succession of\ngenerations.\"\n *(2) Anthropological Review, Jan., 1866, p. xxi. Dr. Sharpe also\nsays, with respect to India (Man a Special Creation, 1873, p. 118),\n\"that it has been noticed by some medical officers that Europeans with\nlight hair and florid complexions suffer less from diseases of\ntropical countries than persons with dark hair and sallow complexions;\nand, so far as I know, there appear to be good grounds for this\nremark.\" On the other hand, Mr. Heddle, of Sierra Leone, \"who has\nhad more clerks killed under him than any other man,\" by the climate\nof the west African coast (W. Reade, African Sketch Book, vol. ii., p.\n522), holds a directly opposite view, as does Capt. Burton.\n Dr. Sharpe remarks,* that a tropical sun, which burns and blisters a\nwhite skin, does not injure a black one at all; and, as he adds,\nthis is not due to habit in the individual, for children only six or\neight months old are often carried about naked, and are not\naffected. I have been assured by a medical man, that some years ago\nduring each summer, but not during the winter, his hands became marked\nwith light brown patches, like, although larger than freckles, and\nthat these patches were never affected by sun-burning, whilst the\nwhite parts of his skin have on several occasions been much inflamed\nand blistered. With the lower animals there is, also, a constitutional\ndifference in liability to the action of the sun between those parts\nof the skin clothed with white hair and other parts.*(2) Whether the\nsaving of the skin from being thus burnt is of sufficient importance\nto account for a dark tint having been gradually acquired by man\nthrough natural selection, I am unable to judge. If it be so, we\nshould have to assume that the natives of tropical America have\nlived there for a much shorter time than the Negroes in Africa or\nthe Papuans in the southern parts of the Malay archipelago, just as\nthe lighter-coloured Hindoos have resided in India for a shorter\ntime than the darker aborigines of the central and southern parts of\nthe peninsula.\n * Man a Special Creation, 1873, p. 119.\n *(2) Variation of Animals and Plants under Domestication, vol.\nii., pp. 336, 337.\n Although with our present knowledge we cannot account for the\ndifferences of colour in the races of man, through any advantage\nthus gained, or from the direct action of climate; yet we must not\nquite ignore the latter agency, for there is good reason to believe\nthat some inherited effect is thus produced.*\n * See, for instance, Quatrefages (Revue des Cours Scientifiques,\nOct. 10, 1868, p. 724) on the effects of residence in Abyssinia and\nArabia, and other analogous cases. Dr. Rolle (Der Mensch, seine\nAbstammung, &c., 1865, s. 99) states, on the authority of Khanikof,\nthat the greater number of German families settled in Georgia, have\nacquired in the course of two generations dark hair and eyes. Mr. D.\nForbes informs me that the Quechuas in the Andes vary greatly in\ncolour, according to the position of the valleys inhabited by them.\n We have seen in the second chapter that the conditions of life\naffect the development of the bodily frame in a direct manner, and\nthat the effects are transmitted. Thus, as is generally admitted,\nthe European settlers in the United States undergo a slight but\nextraordinary rapid change of appearance. Their bodies and limbs\nbecome elongated; and I hear from Col. Bernys that during the late war\nin the United States, good evidence was afforded of this fact by the\nridiculous appearance presented by the German regiments, when\ndressed in ready-made clothes manufactured for the American market,\nand which were much too long for the men in every way. There is, also,\na considerable body of evidence shewing that in the Southern States\nthe house-slaves of the third generation present a markedly\ndifferent appearance from the field-slaves.*\n * Harlan, Medical Researches, p. 532. Quatrefages (Unite de l'Espece\nHumaine, 1861, p. 128) has collected much evidence on this head.\n If, however, we look to the races of man as distributed over the\nworld, we must infer that their characteristic differences cannot be\naccounted for by the direct action of different conditions of life,\neven after exposure to them for an enormous period of time. The\nEsquimaux live exclusively on animal food; they are clothed in thick\nfur, and are exposed to intense cold and to prolonged darkness; yet\nthey do not differ in any extreme degree from the inhabitants of\nsouthern China, who live entirely on vegetable food, and are exposed\nalmost naked to a hot, glaring climate. The unclothed Fuegians live on\nthe marine productions of their inhospitable shores; the Botocudos\nof Brazil wander about the hot forests of the interior and live\nchiefly on vegetable productions; yet these tribes resemble each other\nso closely that the Fuegians on board the \"Beagle\" were mistaken by\nsome Brazilians for Botocudos. The Botocudos again, as well as the\nother inhabitants of tropical America, are wholly different from the\nNegroes who inhabit the opposite shores of the Atlantic, are exposed\nto a nearly similar climate, and follow nearly the same habits of\nlife.\n Nor can the differences between the races of man be accounted for by\nthe inherited effects of the increased or decreased use of parts,\nexcept to a quite insignificant degree. Men who habitually live in\ncanoes, may have their legs somewhat stunted; those who inhabit\nlofty regions may have their chests enlarged; and those who constantly\nuse certain sense-organs may have the cavities in which they are\nlodged somewhat increased in size, and their features consequently a\nlittle modified. With civilized nations, the reduced size of the\njaws from lessened use- the habitual play of different muscles serving\nto express different emotions- and the increased size of the brain\nfrom greater intellectual activity, have together produced a\nconsiderable effect on their general appearance when compared with\nsavages.* Increased bodily stature, without any corresponding increase\nin the size of the brain, may (judging from the previously adduced\ncase of rabbits), have given to some races an elongated skull of the\ndolichocephalic type.\n * See Prof. Schaaffhausen, translat., in Anthropological Review,\nOct., 1868, p. 429.\n Lastly, the little-understood principle of correlated development\nhas sometimes come into action, as in the case of great muscular\ndevelopment and strongly projecting supra-orbital ridges. The colour\nof the skin and hair are plainly correlated, as is the texture of\nthe hair with its colour in the Mandans of North America.* The\ncolour also of the skin, and the odour emitted by it, are likewise\nin some manner connected. With the breeds of sheep the number of hairs\nwithin a given space and the number of excretory pores are\nrelated.*(2) If we may judge from the analogy of our domesticated\nanimals, many modifications of structure in man probably come under\nthis principle of correlated development.\n * Mr. Catlin states (N. American Indians, 3rd ed., 1842, vol. i., p.\n49) that in the whole tribe of the Mandans, about one in ten or twelve\nof the members, of all ages and both sexes, have bright silvery grey\nhair, which is hereditary. Now this hair is as coarse and harsh as\nthat of a horse's mane, whilst the hair of other colours is fine and\nsoft.\n *(2) On the odour of the skin, Godron, De l'Espece, tom. ii., p.\n217. On the pores of the skin, Dr. Wilckens, Die Aufgaben der\nLandwirth. Zootechnik, 1869, s. 7.\n We have now seen that the external characteristic differences\nbetween the races of man cannot be accounted for in a satisfactory\nmanner by the direct action of the conditions of life, nor by the\neffects of the continued use of parts, nor through the principle of\ncorrelation. We are therefore led to enquire whether slight individual\ndifferences, to which man is eminently liable, may not have been\npreserved and augmented during a long series of generations through\nnatural selection. But here we are at once met by the objection that\nbeneficial variations alone can be thus preserved; and as far as we\nare enabled to judge, although always liable to err on this head, none\nof the differences between the races of man are of any direct or\nspecial service to him. The intellectual and moral or social faculties\nmust of course be excepted from this remark. The great variability\nof all the external differences between the races of man, likewise\nindicates that they cannot be of much importance; for if important,\nthey would long ago have been either fixed and preserved, or\neliminated. In this respect man resembles those forms, called by\nnaturalists protean or polymorphic, which have remained extremely\nvariable, owing, as it seems, to such variations being of an\nindifferent nature, and to their having thus escaped the action of\nnatural selection.\n We have thus far been baffled in all our attempts to account for the\ndifferences between the races of man; but there remains one\nimportant agency, namely Sexual Selection, which appears to have acted\npowerfully on man, as on many other animals. I do not intend to assert\nthat sexual selection will account for all the differences between the\nraces. An unexplained residuum is left, about which we can only say,\nin our ignorance, that as individuals are continually born with, for\ninstance, heads a little rounder or narrower, and with noses a\nlittle longer or shorter, such slight differences might become fixed\nand uniform, if the unknown agencies which induced them were to act in\na more constant manner, aided by long-continued intercrossing. Such\nvariations come under the provisional class, alluded to in our\nsecond chapter, which for want of a better term are often called\nspontaneous. Nor do I pretend that the effects of sexual selection can\nbe indicated with scientific precision; but it can be shewn that it\nwould be an inexplicable fact if man had not been modified by this\nagency, which appears to have acted powerfully on innumerable animals.\nIt can further be shewn that the differences between the races of man,\nas in colour, hairiness, form of features, &c., are of a kind which\nmight have been expected to come under the influence of sexual\nselection. But in order to treat this subject properly, I have found\nit necessary to pass the whole animal kingdom in review. I have\ntherefore devoted to it the Second Part of this work. At the close I\nshall return to man, and, after attempting to shew how far he has been\nmodified through sexual selection, will give a brief summary of the\nchapters in this First Part.\n NOTE ON THE RESEMBLANCES AND DIFFERENCES IN THE STRUCTURE AND THE\nDEVELOPMENT OF THE BRAIN IN MAN AND APES. BY PROFESSOR HUXLEY, F. R.\nS.\n The controversy respecting the nature and the extent of the\ndifferences in the structure of the brain in man and the apes, which\narose some fifteen years ago, has not yet come to an end, though the\nsubject matter of the dispute is, at present, totally different from\nwhat it was formerly. It was originally asserted and re-asserted, with\nsingular pertinacity that the brain of all the apes, even the highest,\ndiffers from that of man, in the absence of such conspicuous\nstructures as the posterior lobes of the cerebral hemispheres, with\nthe posterior cornu of the lateral ventricle and the hippocampus\nminor, contained in those lobes, which are so obvious in man.\n But the truth that the structures in question are as well\ndeveloped in apes' as in human brains, or even better; and that it\nis characteristic of all the primates (if we exclude the lemurs) to\nhave these parts well developed, stands at present on as secure a\nbasis as any proposition in comparative anatomy. Moreover, it is\nadmitted by every one of the long series of anatomists who, of late\nyears, have paid special attention to the arrangement of the\ncomplicated sulci 0and gyri which appear upon the surface of the\ncerebral hemispheres in man and the higher apes, that they are\ndisposed after the very same pattern in him, as in them. Every\nprincipal gyrus and sulcus of a chimpanzee's brain is clearly\nrepresented in that of a man, so that the terminology which applies to\nthe one answers for the other. On this point there is no difference of\nopinion. Some years since, Professor Bischoff published a memoir* on\nthe cerebral convolutions of man and apes; and as the purpose of my\nlearned colleague was certainly not to diminish the value of the\ndifferences between apes and men in this respect, I am glad to make\na citation from him.\n * \"Die Grosshirnwindungen des Menschen\"; Abhandlungen der K.\nBayerischen Akademie, B. x., 1868.\n \"That the apes, and especially the orang, chimpanzee and gorilla,\ncome very close to man in their organisation, much nearer than to\nany other animal, is a well known fact, disputed by nobody. Looking at\nthe matter from the point of view of organisation alone, no one\nprobably would ever have disputed the view of Linnaeus, that man\nshould be placed, merely as a peculiar species, at the head of the\nmammalia and of those apes. Both shew, in all their organs, so close\nan affinity, that the most exact anatomical investigation is needed in\norder to demonstrate those differences which really exist. So it is\nwith the brains. The brains of man, the orang, the chimpanzee, the\ngorilla, in spite of all the important differences which they present,\ncome very close to one another\" (loc. cit., p. 101).\n There remains, then, no dispute as to the resemblance in fundamental\ncharacters, between the ape's brain and man's: nor any as to the\nwonderfully close similarity between the chimpanzee, orang and man, in\neven the details of the arrangement of the gyri and sulci of the\ncerebral hemispheres. Nor, turning to the differences between the\nbrains of the highest apes and that of man, is there any serious\nquestion as to the nature and extent of these differences. It is\nadmitted that the man's cerebral hemispheres are absolutely and\nrelatively larger than those of the orang and chimpanzee; that his\nfrontal lobes are less excavated by the upward protrusion of the\nroof of the orbits; that his gyri and sulci are, as a rule, less\nsymmetrically disposed, and present a greater number of secondary\nplications. And it is admitted that, as a rule, in man, the\ntemporo-occipital or \"external perpendicular\" fissure, which is\nusually so strongly marked a feature of the ape's brain is but faintly\nmarked. But it is also clear, that none of these differences\nconstitutes a sharp demarcation between the man's and the ape's brain.\nIn respect to the external perpendicular fissure of Gratiolet, in\nthe human brain for instance, Professor Turner remarks:*\n * Convolutions of the Human Cerebrum Topographically Considered,\n1866, p. 12.\n \"In some brains it appears simply as an indentation of the margin of\nthe hemisphere, but, in others, it tends for some distance more or\nless transversely outwards. I saw it in the right hemisphere of a\nfemale brain pass more than two inches outwards; and on another\nspecimen, also the right hemisphere, it proceeded for four-tenths of\nan inch outwards, and then extended downwards, as far as the lower\nmargin of the outer surface of the hemisphere. The imperfect\ndefinition of this fissure in the majority of human brains, as\ncompared with its remarkable distinctness in the brain of most\nQuadrumana, is owing to the presence, in the former, of certain\nsuperficial, well marked, secondary convolutions which bridge it\nover and connect the parietal with the occipital lobe. The closer\nthe first of these bridging gyri lies to the longitudinal fissure, the\nshorter is the external parieto-occipital fissure\" (loc. cit., p. 12).\n The obliteration of the external perpendicular fissure of Gratiolet,\ntherefore, is not a constant character of the human brain. On the\nother hand, its full development is not a constant character of the\nhigher ape's brain. For, in the chimpanzee, the more or less extensive\nobliteration of the external perpendicular sulcus by \"bridging\nconvolutions,\" on one side or the other, has been noted over and\nover again by Prof. Rolleston, Mr. Marshall, M. Broca and Professor\nTurner. At the conclusion of a special paper on this subject the\nlatter writes:*\n * \"Notes more especially on the bridging convolutions in the Brain\nof the Chimpanzee,\" Proceedings of the Royal Society of Edinburgh,\n1865-6.\n \"The three specimens of the brain of a Chimpanzee,\" just described,\nprove that the generalisation which Gratiolet has attempted to draw of\nthe complete absence of the first connecting convolution and the\nconcealment of the second, as essentially characteristic features in\nthe brain of this animal, is by no means universally applicable. In\nonly one specimen did the brain, in these particulars, follow the\nlaw which Gratiolet has expressed. As regards the presence of the\nsuperior bridging convolution, I am inclined to think that it has\nexisted in one hemisphere, at least, in a majority of the brains of\nthis animal which have, up to this time, been figured or described.\nThe superficial position of the second bridging convolution is\nevidently less frequent, and has as yet, I believe, only been seen\nin the brain (A) recorded in this communication. The asymmetrical\narrangement in the convolutions of the two hemispheres, which previous\nobservers have referred to in their descriptions, is also well\nillustrated in these specimens\" (pp. 8, 9).\n Even were the presence of the temporo-occipital, or external\nperpendicular, sulcus, a mark of distinction between the higher apes\nand man, the value of such a distinctive character would be rendered\nvery doubtful by the structure of the brain in the platyrhine apes. In\nfact, while the temporo-occipital is one of the most constant of sulci\nin the catarhine, or Old World, apes, it is never very strongly\ndeveloped in the New World apes; it is absent in the smaller\nplatyrhine; rudimentary in Pithecia;* and more or less obliterated\nby bridging convolutions in Ateles.\n * FIower, \"On the Anatomy of Pithecia Monachus,\" Proceedings of\nthe Zoological Society, 1862.\n A character which is thus variable within the limits of a single\ngroup can have no great taxonomic value.\n It is further established, that the degree of asymmetry of the\nconvolution of the two sides in the human brain is subject to much\nindividual variation; and that, in those individuals of the bushman\nrace who have been examined, the gyri and sulci of the two hemispheres\nare considerably less complicated and more symmetrical than in theEuropean brain, while, in some individuals of the chimpanzee, their\ncomplexity and asymmetry become notable. This is particularly the case\nin the brain of a young male chimpanzee figured by M. Broca.\n(L'ordre des Primates, p. 165, fig. 11.)\n Again, as respects the question of absolute size, it is\nestablished that the difference between the largest and the smallest\nhealthy human brain is greater than the difference between the\nsmallest healthy human brain and the largest chimpanzee's or orang's\nbrain.\n Moreover, there is one circumstance in which the orang's and\nchimpanzee's brains resemble man's, but in which they differ from\nthe lower apes, and that is the presence of two corpora candicantia-\nthe Cynomorpha having but one.\n In view of these facts I do not hesitate in this year 1874, to\nrepeat and insist upon the proposition which I enunciated in 1863:*\n * Man's Place in Nature, p. 102.\n \"So far as cerebral structure goes, therefore, it is clear that\nman differs less from the chimpanzee or the orang, than these do\neven from the monkeys, and that the difference between the brain of\nthe chimpanzee and of man is almost insignificant when compared with\nthat between the chimpanzee brain and that of a lemur.\"\n In the paper to which I have referred, Professor Bischoff does not\ndeny the second part of this statement, but he first makes the\nirrelevant remark that it is not wonderful if the brains of an orang\nand a lemur are very different; and secondly, goes on to assert\nthat, \"If we successively compare the brain of a man with that of an\norang; the brain of this with that of a chimpanzee; of this with\nthat of a gorilla, and so on of a Hylobates, Semnopithecus,\nCynocephalus, Cercopithecus, Macacus, Cebus, Callithrix, Lemur,\nStenops, Hapale, we shall not meet with a greater, or even as great\na break in the degree of development of the convolutions, as we find\nbetween the brain of a man and that of an orang or chimpanzee.\"\n To which I reply, firstly, that whether this assertion be true or\nfalse, it has nothing whatever to do with the proposition enunciated\nin Man's Place in Nature, which refers not to the development of the\nconvolutions alone, but to the structure of the whole brain. If\nProfessor Bischoff had taken the trouble to refer to p. 96 of the work\nhe criticises, in fact, he would have found the following passage:\n\"And it is a remarkable circumstance that though, so far as our\npresent knowledge extends, there is one true structural break in the\nseries of forms of simian brains, this hiatus does not lie between man\nand the manlike apes, but between the lower and the lowest simians, or\nin other words, between the Old and New World apes and monkeys and the\nlemurs. Every lemur which has yet been examined, in fact, has its\ncerebellum partially visible from above; and its posterior lobe,\nwith the contained posterior cornu and hippocampus minor, more or less\nrudimentary. Every marmoset, American monkey, Old World monkey, baboon\nor manlike ape, on the contrary, has its cerebellum entirely hidden,\nposteriorly, by the cerebral lobes, and possesses a large posterior\ncornu with a well-developed hippocampus minor.\"\n This statement was a strictly accurate account of what was known\nwhen it was made; and it does not appear to me to be more than\napparently weakened by the subsequent discovery of the relatively\nsmall development of the posterior lobes in the siamang and in the\nhowling monkey. Notwithstanding the exceptional brevity of the\nposterior lobes in these two species, no one will pretend that their\nbrains, in the slightest degree, approach those of the lemurs. And if,\ninstead of putting Hapale out of its natural place, as Professor\nBischoff most unaccountably does, we write the series of animals he\nhas chosen to mention as follows: Homo, Pithecus, Troglodytes,\nHylobates, Semnopithecus, Cynocephalus, Cereopithecus, Macacus, Cebus,\nCallithrix, Hapale, Lemur, Stenops, I venture to reaffirm that the\ngreat break in this series lies between Hapale and Lemur, and that\nthis break is considerably greater than that between any other two\nterms of that series. Professor Bischoff ignores the fact that long\nbefore he wrote, Gratiolet had suggested the separation of the\nlemurs from the other primates on the very ground of the difference in\ntheir cerebral characters; and that Professor Flower had made the\nfollowing observations in the course of his description of the brain\nof the Javan loris:*\n * Transactions of the Zoological Society, vol. v., 1862.\n \"And it is especially remarkable that, in the development of the\nposterior lobes, there is no approximation to the lemurine, short\nhemisphered brain, in those monkeys which are commonly supposed to\napproach this family in other respects, viz., the lower members of the\nplatyrhine group.\"\n So far as the structure of the adult brain is concerned, then, the\nvery considerable additions to our knowledge, which have been made\nby the researches of so many investigators, during the past ten years,\nfully justify the statement which I made in 1863. But it has been\nsaid, that, admitting the similarity between the adult brains of man\nand apes, they are nevertheless, in reality, widely different, because\nthey exhibit fundamental differences in the mode of their development.\nNo one would be more ready than I to admit the force of this argument,\nif such fundamental differences of development really exist. But I\ndeny that they do exist. On the contrary, there is a fundamental\nagreement in the development of the brain in men and apes.\n Gratiolet originated the statement that there is a fundamental\ndifference in the development of the brains of apes and that of man-\nconsisting in this; that, in the apes, the sulci which first make\ntheir appearance are situated on the posterior region of the\ncerebral hemispheres, while, in the human foetus, the sulci first\nbecome visible on the frontal lobes.*\n * \"Chez tous les singes, les plis posterieurs se developpent les\npremiers; les plis anterieurs se developpent plus tard, aussi la\nvertebre occipitale et la parietale sont-elles relativement\ntres-grandes chez le foetus. L'Homme presente une exception\nremarquable quant a l'epoque de l'apparition des plis frontaux, qui\nsont les premiers indiques; mais le developpement general du lobe\nfrontal, envisage seulement par rapport a son volume, suit les memes\nlois que dans les singes\"; Gratiolet, Memoire sur les plis cerebres de\nl'Homme et des Primateaux, p. 39, tab. iv, fig. 3.\n This general statement is based upon two observations, the one of\na gibbon almost ready to be born, in which the posterior gyri were\n\"well developed,\" while those of the frontal lobes were \"hardly\nindicated\"* (loc. cit., p. 39), and the other of a human foetus at the\n22nd or 23rd week of utero-gestation, in which Gratiolet notes that\nthe insula was uncovered, but that nevertheless \"des incisures\nsement de lobe anterieur, une scissure peu profonde indique la\nseparation du lobe occipital, tres-reduit, d'ailleurs des cette\nepoque. Le reste de la surface cerebrale est encore absolument lisse.\"\n * Gratiolet's words are (loc. cit., p. 39): \"Dans le foetus dont\nil s'agit les plis cerebraux posterieurs sont bien developpes,\ntandis que les plis du lobe frontal sont a peine indiques.\" The\nfigure, however (pl. iv, fig. 3), shews the fissure of Rolando, and\none of the frontal sulci plainly enough. Nevertheless, M. Alix, in his\n\"Notice sur les travaux anthropologiques de Gratiolet\" (Mem. de la\nSociete d'Anthropologie de Paris, 1868, page 32), writes thus:\n\"Gratiolet a eu entre les mains le cerveau d'un foetus de Gibbon,\nsinge eminemment superieur, et tellement rapproche de l'orang, que des\nnaturalistes tres-competents l'ont range parmi les anthropoides. M.\nHuxley, par exemple, n'hesite pas sur ce point. Eh bien, c'est sur\nle cerveau d'un foetus de Gibbon que Gratiolet a vu les\ncirconvolutions du lobe temporo-sphenoidal deja developpees\nlorsqu'il n'existent pas encore de plis sur le lobe frontal. Il\netait donc bien autorise a dire que, chez l'homme les\ncirconvolutions apparaissent d' a en w, tandis que chez les singes\nelles se developpent d'w en a.\"\n Three views of this brain are given in plate II, figs. 1, 2, 3, of\nthe work cited, shewing the upper, lateral and inferior views of the\nhemispheres, but not the inner view. It is worthy of note that the\nfigure by no means bears out Gratiolet's description, inasmuch as\nthe fissure (antero-temporal) on the posterior half of the face of the\nhemisphere is more marked than any of those vaguely indicated in the\nanterior half. If the figure is correct, it in no way justifies\nGratiolet's conclusion: \"Il y a donc entre ces cerveaux [those of a\nCallithrix and of a gibbon] et celui du foetus humain une difference\nfondamental. Chez celui-ci, longtemps avant que les plis temporaux\napparaissent, les plis frontaux, essayent d'exister.\"\n Since Gratiolet's time, however, the development of the gyri and\nsulci of the brain has been made the subject of renewed\ninvestigation by Schmidt, Bischoff, Pansch,* and more particularly\nby Ecker,*(2) whose work is not only the latest, but by far the most\ncomplete, memoir on the subject.\n * Uber die typische Anordnung der Furchen und Windungen auf den\nGrosshirn-Hemispharen des Menschen und der Affen,\" Archiv fur\nAnthropologie, iii., 1868\n *(2) \"Zur Entwicklungsgeschichte der Furchen und Windungen der\nGrosshirn-Hemispharen im Foetus des Menschen.\" Archiv fur\nAnthropologie, iii., 1868.\n The final results of their inquiries may be summed up as follows:-\n 1. In the human foetus, the sylvian fissure is formed in the\ncourse of the third month of utero-gestation. In this, and in the\nfourth month, the cerebral hemispheres are smooth and rounded (with\nthe exception of the sylvian depression), and they project backwards\nfar beyond the cerebellum.\n 2. The sulci, properly so called, begin to appear in the interval\nbetween the end of the fourth and the beginning of the sixth month\nof foetal life, but Ecker is careful to point out that, not only the\ntime, but the order, of their appearance is subject to considerable\nindividual variation. In no case, however, are either the frontal or\nthe temporal sulci the earliest.\n The first which appears, in fact, lies on the inner face of the\nhemisphere (whence doubtless Gratiolet, who does not seem to have\nexamined that face in his foetus, overlooked it), and is either the\ninternal perpendicular (occipito-parietal), or the calcarine sulcus,\nthese two being close together and eventually running into one\nanother. As a rule the occipito-parietal is the earlier of the two.\n 3. At the latter part of this period, another sulcus, the\n\"posterio-parietal,\" or \"Fissure of Rolando\" is developed, and it is\nfollowed, in the course of the sixth month, by the other principal\nsulci of the frontal, parietal, temporal and occipital lobes. There\nis, however, no clear evidence that one of these constantly appears\nbefore the other; and it is remarkable that, in the brain at the\nperiod described and figured by Ecker (loc. cit., pp. 212-213 tab. II,\nfigs. 1, 2, 3, 4), the antero-temporal sulcus (scissure parallele)\nso characteristic of the ape's brain, is as well, if not better\ndeveloped than the fissure of Rolando, and is much more marked than\nthe proper frontal sulci.\n Taking the facts as they now stand, it appears to me that the\norder of the appearance of the sulci and gyri in the foetal human\nbrain is in perfect harmony with the general doctrine of evolution,\nand with the view that man has been evolved from some ape-like form;\nthough there can be no doubt that that form was, in many respects,\ndifferent from any member of the primates now living.\n Von Baer taught us, half a century ago, that, in the course of their\ndevelopment, allied animals put on at first, the characters of the\ngreater groups to which they belong, and, by degrees, assume those\nwhich restrict them within the limits of their family, genus, and\nspecies; and he proved, at the same time, that no developmental\nstage of a higher animal is precisely similar to the adult condition\nof any lower animal. It is quite correct to say that a frog passes\nthrough the condition of a fish, inasmuch as at one period of its life\nthe tadpole has all the characters of a fish, and if it went no\nfurther, would have to be grouped among fishes. But it is equally true\nthat a tadpole is very different from any known fish.\n In like manner, the brain of a human foetus, at the fifth month, may\ncorrectly be said to be, not only the brain of an ape, but that of\nan arctopithecine or marmoset-like ape; for its hemispheres, with\ntheir great posterior lobster, and with no sulci but the sylvian and\nthe calcarine, present the characteristics found only in the group\nof the arctopithecine primates. But it is equally true, as Gratiolet\nremarks, that, in its widely open sylvian fissure, it differs from the\nbrain of any actual marmoset. No doubt it would be much more similar\nto the brain of an advanced foetus of a marmoset. But we know\nnothing whatever of the development of the brain in the marmosets.\nIn the Platyrhini proper, the only observation with which I am\nacquainted is due to Pansch, who found in the brain of a foetal\nCebus apella, in addition to the sylvian fissure and the deep\ncalcarine fissure, only a very shallow antero-temporal fissure\n(scissure parallele of Gratiolet).\n Now this fact, taken together with the circumstance that the\nantero-temporal sulcus is present in such Platyrhini as the Saimiri,\nwhich present mere traces of sulci on the anterior half of the\nexterior of the cerebral hemispheres, or none at all, undoubtedly,\nso far as it goes, affords fair evidence in favour of Gratiolet's\nhypothesis, that the posterior sulci appear before the anterior, in\nthe brains of the Platyrhini. But, it by no means follows, that the\nrule which may hold good for the Platyrhini extends to the\nCatarhini. We have no information whatever respecting the\ndevelopment of the brain in the Cynomorphia; and, as regards the\nAnthropomorpha, nothing but the account of the brain of the gibbon\nnear birth, already referred to. At the present moment there is not\na shadow of evidence to show that the sulci of a chimpanzee's, or\norang's, brain do not appear in the same order as a man's.\n Gratiolet opens his preface with the aphorism: \"Il est dangereux\ndans les sciences de conclure trop vite.\" I fear he must have\nforgotten this sound maxim by the time he had reached the discussion\nof the differences between men and apes, in the body of his work. No\ndoubt, the excellent author of one of the most remarkable\ncontributions to the just understanding of the mammalian brain which\nhas ever been made, would have been the first to admit the\ninsufficiency of his data had he lived to profit by the advance of\ninquiry. The misfortune is that his conclusions have been employed\nby persons incompetent to appreciate their foundation, as arguments in\nfavour of obscurantism.*\n * For example, M. l'Abbe Lecomte in his terrible pamphlet, Le\nDarwinisme et l'origine de l'homme, 1873.\n But it is important to remark that, whether Gratiolet was right or\nwrong in his hypothesis respecting the relative order of appearance of\nthe temporal and frontal sulci, the fact remains; that. before\neither temporal or frontal sulci, appear, the foetal brain of man\npresents characters which are found only in the lowest group of the\nprimates (leaving out the lemurs); and that this is exactly what we\nshould expect to be the case, if man has resulted from the gradual\nmodification of the same form as that from which the other primates\nhave sprung.","title":"Chapter VII - On the Races of Man","type":"page"}