out, to some extent, by the pressure of the plaster; but the European brain is the flatter
of the two. We have a cast of the entire head of this American Indian, and it corresponds
closely with the form of the brain here represented. It is obvious that the absolute size
of the brain (although probably a few ounces less in the American) mig h t be the same in both ;
and yet, if different portions manifest different mental powers, the characters of the individuals,
and of the nations to which they belonged (assuming them to be types of the races),
might be exceedingly different. In the American Indian, the anterior lobe, lying between
Fia. 353.
A A
Fig. 354.
A A
D D
American Indian. European.
A A and B B, is small, and in the European it is large, in proportion to the middle lobe,
lying between B B and C C. In the American Indian, the posterior lobe, lying between C
and D, is much smaller than in the European. In the American, the cerebral convolutions
on the anterior lobe and upper surface of the brain, are smaller than in the European.
“ If the anterior lobe manifest the intellectual faculties—'the middle lobe, the propensities
common to man with the lower animals—and the posterior lobe, the domestic and social
affections — and if size influence the power of manifestation, the result will be, that in the
native American, intellect will be feeble — in the European, strong; in the American, animal
propensity will be very great—in the European, more moderate; while, in the American,
the domestic and social affections will be feeble, and, in the European, powerful.
We do not state these as established results; we use the cuts only to illustrate the fact
that the native American and European brains differ widely in the proportions o f their different
p a r ts ; and the conclusion seems natural, that if different functions be attached to different
parts, no investigation can deserve attention which does not embrace the size of the different
regions, in so far as it can be ascertained.”
Prof. Tiedemann admits that “ there is, undoubtedly, a very close connection between
the absolute size of the brain and the intellectual powers and functions of the mind; ” asserting
also that the Negro races possess brain as large as Europeans: but, while he overlooked
entirely the comparative size of parts, Morton has refuted him on the equality in
absolute size.
The above comparison of two human brains illustrates anatomical
divergences between European and American races. Could a complete
series of engravings, embracing specimens from each type of
mankind, be submitted to the reader, bis eye, seizing instantaneously
the cerebral distinctions between Peruvians and Australians, Mongols
and Hottentots, would compel him to admit that the physical
difference of human races is as obvious in their internal brains as in
their external features.
Eet us here pause, and incpiire what landmarks have been placed
along the track of our journey. The reader who has travelled with
us thus far will not, I think, deny that, from the facts now accessible,
the following must be legitimate deductions: —
1 That the surface of our globe is naturally divided into several zoological provinces, each of
which is a distinct centye,o f creation, possessing a p ecu lia r fa u n a a n d f lo r a ; a n d th a t every
species of animal and plant was originally assigned to its appropriate province.
2 That the human family offers no exception to this general lose, but fully conforms to it:
Mankind being divided M g several groups of Races, each of which constitutes a primitive
dement in the fauna of its peculiar province.
3. That history affords no evidence of the transformation of one Type into another, nor of the
origination of a new and p e bm a n e n i Type.
4. That certain Types have been p e bm a n en t through all recorded lime, and despite the most
opposite moral and physical influences.
5. That pebm an en c e of Type is accepted by science as the surest test o /s p e c ie ic character.
6. That certain Types have existed (the same as now) in and around the VdUey of the Nile,
from ages anterior to «500 years B. 0., and consequently long prior to any alphabetic
chronicles, sacred or profane.
7. T h a t the ancient Egyptians had already classified Mankind, as known to them, into potjb
R a c e s , previously to any date assignable to Moses.
8. That high antiquity far distinct Races is a m p l y sustained by linguistic researches, by psychological
history, and by anatomical characteristics.
9. That the primeval existence of Man, in widely separate portions of the globe, is proven by the
discovery of his osseous and industrial remains in alluvial deposits and m diluvial drifts;
and more especially of his fossil bones, imbedded in various rocky strata along with the
vestiges of extinct species of animals.
10. That PBOLIPICAOY of distinct species, in te r se, is now proved to be no test of common
ORIGIN.
11. That those Races of men most separated in physical organization— such as the blacks
and the w h i t e s - ^ - * not amalgamate perfectly, but obey the Laws of Sybridity. Mence
12. It follows, as a corollary, that there exists a G en es Homo, embracing many primordial
Types or “ Species.”
Here terminates Part I. of this volume, and with, it the joint
responsibilities of its authors. It remains for my colleague, Mr.
Gbddon, to show what light has been thrown by Oriental researches
upon those parts of Scripture that bear upon the “ Origin of
Mankind.”' J. C. N.