skeleton and especially of the skulls of these species of orangs, with
the descriptions and illustrations of the different races of naan, to be
found in almost every work on this subject, shows that the orangs
differ from one another in the same manner as the races of man do;
so much so, that, if these orangs are different species, the different
races of men which inhabit the same countries, the Malays and the
Negrillos, must he considered also as distinct species. This conclusion
acquires still greater strength, if we extend the comparison to
the long-armed monkeys, the Hylobates of the Sunda islands and
of the peninsulas of Malacca and Deckan, which extend over regions
inhabited by the Telingans, the Malays, and the Negrillos; for there
exists even a greater diversity of opinions among zoologists respecting
the natural limits of the species of the genus Hylobates, than
respecting those of the orangs, which constitute the genus Pithecus.
I have already alluded, on another occasion, to the identity of color
of the Malays and orangs: may we not now remember, also, a
similar resemblance between some of the species of Hylobates with
the Negrillos and Telingans ?
“ The monkeys of South America are also very instructive in this
respect, especially the genus Cebus. While some zoologists distinguish
as many as ten different species, others consider them all as
one, and others acknowledge two or three species. Here we have
again, with reference to one genus of monkeys, the same diversity
of opinion as exists among naturalists respecting the races of man.
But, in this case, the question assumes a peculiar interest, from the
circumstance that the genus Cebus is exclusively American; for that
discloses the same indefinite limitation between its species which
we observe also among the tribes of Indians, or the same tendency
to splitting into minor groups, running really one into the other,
notwithstanding some few marked differences, — in the same
manner, as Morton has shown, that all the Indians constitute but
one race, from one end of the continent to the other. This differentiation
of our animals into an almost indefinite number of varieties,
in species which have, as a whole, a wide geographical distribution,
is a feature which prevails very extensively upon the two continents
of America. It may be observed among our squirrels, our rabbits
and hares, our turtles, and even among our fishes; while, in the Old
World, notwithstanding the recurrence of similar phenomena, the
range of variation of species seems less extensive and the range of
their geographical distribution more limited. In accordance with
this general character of the animal kingdom, we find likewise that,
among men, with the exception of the Arctic Esquimaux, there is
only one single race of men extending over the whole range of
North and South America, but dividing into innumerable tribes;
whilst, in the Old World, there are a great many well-defined and
easily distinguished races, which are circumscribed within comparatively
much narrower boundaries.
“ This being the case, is it not plain that, unless we compare con
stantly the results of our ethnological investigations with the daily
increasing information we possess respecting the relations of animals
to one another and their geographical distribution, light will never
shine upon the question of the races of man ?
“ There is another point to which I would simply allude. Much
importance is attached to the affinity of languages—by those who
insist upon the primitive unity of man—as exhibiting, in their
opinion, the necessity of a direct affiliation between all men. But
the very same thing might be shown of any natural family of animals,—
even of such families as contain a large number of distinct
genera and species. Let any one follow upon a map exhibiting the
geographical distribution of the bears, the cats, the hollow-horned
ruminants, the gallinaceous birds, the ducks, or of any other families,
and he may trace, as satisfactorily as any philological evidence can
prove it for the human language, and upon a much larger scale, that
the brumming of the bears of Kamtschatka is akin to that of the
bears of Thibet, of the East Indies, of the Sunda islands, of Nepal,
of Syria, of Europe, of Siberia, of the Hnited States, of the Rocky
mountains, and of the Andes; though all these bears are considered
as distinct species, who have not any more inherited their voice one
from the other, than the different races of men. The same may be
said of the roaring and miawing of the cats of Europe, Asia, Africa,
and America; or of the lowing of the bulls, the species of which
•are so widely distributed nearly over the whole globe. The same is
true of the gackeling of the gallinaceous birds, and of the quacking of
the ducks, as well as of the song of the thrushes,—all of which pour
forth their gay and harmonious notes in a distinct and independent
dialect, neither derived nor inherited one from the other, even though
all sing thrushi'sA Let any philologist study these facts, and learn, at
the same time, how independent the animals are, one from the other,
which utter such closely allied systems of intonations, and, if he be
not altogether blind to the significance of analogies in nature, he
must begin himself to question the reliability of philological evidence
as proving genetic derivation.
“ Ls. A g a s s i z . ”
M e s sr s . N ott & G l id do n .