of three different species of the same genus, &c. &c. We .might
select many other examples among our common quadrupeds, or
among,hirds, reptiles, fishes, &c., but these will he sufficient for our
purpose. In the genus horse we have two domesticated species, the
common horse and the donkey; in the genus hull, one domesticated
species and the wild buffalo; the three species of hear mentioned are
only found in the wild state. The ground upon which these animals ■
are considered as distinct species is simply the fact, that, since they
have been known to man, they have always preserved the same characteristics.
To make specific difference or identity depend upon
genetic succession, is begging the principle and taking for granted
what in reality is under discussion. I t is true that animals of the
same species are fertile among themselves,-and that their fecundity
is an easy test of this natural relation; hut this character is not exclusive,
since we know that the horse and the ass, the buffalo and
our cattle, like many other animals, may he crossed; we are, therefore,
not justified, in doubtful cases, in considering the fertility of
two animals as. decisive of their specific identity. Moreover, generation
is not the only way in which certain animals may multiply,
as there are entire classes in which the larger number of individuals
do not originate from eggs. Any definition of species in
which the question of generation is introduced is, therefore, objectionable.
The assumption, that the fertility of cross-breeds is necessarily
limited to one or two generations, does not alter the case;
since, in many instances, it is not proved beyond dispute. It is,
however, beyond all question that individuals of distinct species may,
in certain cases, he productive with one another, as well as with
their own kind. It is equally certain that their offspring is a
half-hreed; that is to say, a being partaking of the peculiarities of
the two parents, and not identical with either. The only definition
of species meeting all these difficulties is that of Dr. Morton, who
characterizes them as primordial organic forms. Species are thus
distinct forms of organic life, the origin of which is lost in the
primitive establishment of the state of things now existing, and
varieties are such modifications of the species as may return to the
typical form, under temporary influences. Accepting this definition
with the qualifications just mentioned respecting hyhridity, I am
prepared to show that the differences existing between the races of
men are of the same kind as the differences observed between the
different families, genera, and species of monkeys or other animals;
and that these different species of animals differ in the same degree
one from the other as the races of men—nay, the differences between
distinct races are often greater than those distinguishing species of
animals one from the other. The chimpanzee and gorilla do not
d i f f e r more one from the other than the Mandingo and the Guinea
Negro: they together do not differ more from the orang than the
Malay or white man differs from the Megro. In proof of this assertion,
I need only refer the reader to the description of the anthropoid
monkeys published by Prof. Owen and by Dr. J. Wyman, and to
such descriptions of the races of men as notice more important
peculiarities than the mere differences in the color of the skin.^ It
is, however, hut fair to exonerate these authors from the responsibility
of any deduction I would draw from a renewed examination of the
same facts, differing from theirs; for I maintain distinctly that the
differences observed among the races of men are of the same kind
and even greater than those upon which the anthropoid monkeys
are considered as distinct species.
Again, nobody can deny that the offspring of different races
is always a half-hreed, as between animals of different species, and
not a child like either its mother or its father. These conclusions
in no®way conflict with the idea of the unity of mankind, which
is as close as that of the members of any well-marked type of
animals^ and whosoever will consult history must remain satisfied,
that the moral question of brotherhood among men is not any more
affected by these views than the direct obligations between immediate
blood relations. Unity is determinal by a typical structure, and by
the similarity of natural abilities and propensities; and, unless we deny
the typical relations of the cat tribe, for instance, we must admit that
unity is not only compatible with diversity of origin, hut that it is
the universal law of nature.
This coincidence, between the circumscription of the races of man
and the natural limits of different zoological provinces characterized
by peculiar distinct species of animals, is one of the most important
and unexpected features in the Natural History of Mankind, which
the study of the geographical distribution of all the organized beings,
now existing upon earth, has disclosed to us. It is a fact which cannot
fail to throw light, at some future time, upon the very origin,
of the differences existing among men, since it shows th'at man’s
physical nature is modified by the same laws as that of animals,
and that any general results obtained from the animal kingdom
regarding the organic differences of its variousstypes must also apply
to man.
How,there are only two alternatives before us at present: —
1st. Either mankind originated from a common stock, and all
the different races with their peculiarities, in their present
distribution, are to be ascribed to subsequent changes —