mammalia and birds, fpr example, minutise which, among the Inverte-
brata, would be deemed of little note, become of decided value, and
are no longer to be neglected. Even thé modifications, however
slight, of a common type, now become stamped with a value, the
ratio of which increases as we advance from the lower to the higher
orders. Hence, with respect to mammalia, the highest class of
Vertebrata, every structural phase claims attention;' and, when we
advance to the highest of the highest class, viz., Man, and the Quad-
rumana, the naturalist lays a greater stress on minute grades and
modifications of form, than he does when among the cetacea or the
marsupials; and hence, groups are separated upon characters thus
derived, because they involve marked differences in the animal
economy, and because it is felt that a modification, in itself of no
great extent, leads to most important results. Carrying out the
principle of an increase in the value of differential characters as we
advance in the scale of being, it may be affirmed that, upon legitimate
zoological grounds, the organic conformation of man, modelled,
possibly, upon the same type as that of the chimpanzee or orang,
but modified, with a view to fit him for the habits, manners, and,
indeed, a totality of active existence, indicative of a destiny and
purposes participated in neither by the chimpanzee nor any other
animal, removes Man from' the Quadrumana, not merely in a generic
point of view, but from the pale of the Primates, to an exclusive
situation. The zoological value of characters derived from structural
modifications is commensurate with the results which they
involve ; let it then be shown that man, though a cheiropod (handfooted),
possesses structural modifications leading to most important
results, and our views are at once, justified.”71
It will thus be seen that anatomical differences are valuable to the
zoologist more from their permanency, than from their magnitude.
“ A species,” says Prof. lieidy, “ is a mere convenient word with
which naturalists empirically designate groups of organized heings
possessing characters of comparative constancy, as far as historic
experience has guided them in giving due weight to such constancy.”
72 An organic form historically constant is, therefore, a
simple and exact expression of a species. In this constancy of a
form lies its typical importance as a standard or point of departure
71 A General Introduction to the Natural History of Mammiferons Animals, with a particular
view of the Physical History of Man, &c. By W. C. S. Martin, P. L. S. London,
1841, p. 200.
72 Proceedings of the Academy of Natural Sciences, Vol. VII. p. 201. — See also a letter
from Prof. L. to Dr. Nott, of Mobile, published in the Appendix to Hotz’s translation of
Gobineau’s work on the Inequality of Races, &c., p. 480.
in all our attempts at classification and developing the laws of formation.
The mere shape, volume, or configuration, is secondary.
The polar, hrown, and grizzly bears differ but little in their oste
ology; the same is true of the horse, ass, and zebra, and of the lion,
tiger, and panther. By most naturalists the horse and ass are referred
to distinct species,—-by Prof. Owen to distinct genera. The latter
gentleman specifically separates a fossil from the recent horse, in
consequence of a slight curvature in the teeth of the former. According
to Elourens, the dog and fox belong to different genera; the dog
and wolf to distinct species, as also the lion and tiger.73 How the
crania of the horse and ass differ in their nasal bones only. The
pupil of the dog-is disc-shaped; that of the fox, elongated. Says
Knox: “ The nasal bones of the ass differ constantly from those of
the horse; so do those of the lion and tiger. The distinction extends
to the whole physiognomical character of the crania in these four
species, and in all others. But so it is in man, chiefly in these very
bones, and in the physiognomy of the skeleton of the face. For it
is not in the comparative length or size merely of the nasal or maxillary
bones that the cranium of the Bosjieman and the Australian
differ from the other races' of men, although these differences are no
doubt as constant and real as are the anatomical differences of any
two species; they differ in every respect, and especially do they display
physiognomical distinction, which the experienced eye detects
at once. When fossil man shall be discovered, he, also, will be
proved to have belonged to a species distinct from any that now
live. By the generic law I am about to establish, his affiliation with
the existing races may and will be proved, first by the fact of his
extinction, but still more by those slight1 anatomical differences,
which, though seemingly unimportant, are not really so. His relation
to the present or living world will be the same as that of the
extinct solid-ungular and carnivora to the living—generically identical,
specifically distinct.” 74
Between the crania of the various races of men, the same slight,
but constant, and therefore important, differences can he pointed out
in some instances even more marked and better characterized than
those which are considered by naturalists of high distinction, as sufficient
to form a basis upon which to establish species. It is true that
no human race possesses a bone the more or less in the cranium, than
the others; but it1 is equally true that human crania differ, in some
instances quite remarkably, in the size and proportions of their con-
78 Op. cit., p. 111.
74 Introduction to Inquiries into the Philosophy of Zoology, by Robt. Knox, M.D., &c.,
in London Lancet, Oct., 1855.