Africa, or so linked together as to show that in their combination with the birds, reptiles, fishes, &c., of the same countries, they constitute a natural zoological association analagous to that of Asia, but essentially different in reference to species." *

Dr. Agassiz has elsewhere† shown that animals, ‡ at least, could not all have originated, either from a common centre, or from single pairs-bees, for example, must have been created in swarms, buffaloes probably in herds, Indians possibly in tribes. To return:

"We find the races of men occupying circumscribed localities, in intimate connection with the recognized zoological and botanical provinces. Arctic man, like arctic animals, is the same in America, Europe and Asia. The races become more distinct as we approach the equator. In temperate Europe we have the great Caucasian family, whose three great branches may be said to be three varieties of the same species, as the varieties of the lion in Northern and Southern Africa (though having their peculiar marks) constitute one species. In temperate Asia we have the Mongolian race. In temperate America we have the Indian. In the tropics we have the African nations, the Malay race and the people of Central America and the West Indies (by some considered congenital with the Malays). In New Holland we have the Australian. In the Pacific islands we have the Polynesian and several local varieties. In Southern Africa we have the Bushman, the Hottentot and the Kaffir; in Southern America the Patagonian and the Fuegian. Among the quadrumana which approach nearest to man, we see a similar adaptation of species to continents. The monkeys of America, of Asia, of Africa and of Madagascar are different from each other; and what is curious is the fact, that the black orang is confined to the continent occupied by the black buman races, while the brown orang is found with the tawney Malay races. Is it at all likely that one is a modification of the other, by climate or external circumstances?" ||

Looking at man merely from a zoological point of view, the doctrine here stated, notwithstanding its novelty, obviously commends itself to the good sense of the enquirer after truth.

* Ibid, p. lxvi. Christian Examiner, March, 1850.

Not to speak of plants, though the laws which govern fauna and flora are analagous. Zeune puts it in this way: "Inasmuch as, according to the assertion of a beloved dramatist, it has not yet occurred to any one to maintain that all figs have come from a single primitive fig, even so little can any body admit the whole of mankind to be derived (abstammen) from a single human pair. Wherever the conditions for Life were found, there Life has sprung forth. Menschenrassen, pp. 3-4.

|| Kneeland's Introduction to Hamilton Smith's Nat. History of Man, p. 70.

Second. An argument for the diversity theory is drawn from the science of ANATOMY.

Different races of men differ from each other in physical structure to an extent which, in the case of other animals would induce naturalists to class them as radically distinct species.

To simplify the discussion, let the two extremes, the Caucassian and the Negro race, be compared. The color of the African is produced chiefly by the secretion of a dark pigment by the vessels of the true skin, and its deposition in the cells of the rete mucosum. The latter, consisting of two laminæ, * instead of one as in the Caucassian, is comparatively thick; whence arises the softness of the negro's skin to the touch. Now, if a race of men had horns and hoofs, no one would doubt that they were a distinct species, and yet, to a naturalist, the presence of an extra skin in the negro is as absolute an indication of specific difference as horns or hoofs. So also is the fact that, like the male ape, the negro has no frænum preputii.

The covering of the African's head is a true wool, cospidate, or having a multitude of projecting points, so that it can be and has been, felted. It is smeared with an unctuous secretion and is less fibrous in its texture than the hair of the Caucassian. In shape it is eccentrically elliptical, the diameters being respectively about 1-312 and 1-970 of an inch, while the hair of the European is oval (about 1-273 by 1-364) and that of the American Indian cylindrical in shape. †

We had copied for insertion here Dr. Caldwell's unrivalled and conclusive analysis, from personal examination and dissection, of the entire negro anatomy; but the extract is too long for our remaining space, and we have only room for his conclusion:

"The domestic dog, the wolf and the hyena are acknowledged to belong to different species. Yet let a skeleton of each be prepared, and it will be much more difficult to distinguish one from the other, than to distinguish an African from a Caucassian skeleton. The same is true of the skeletons of the tiger and the large Asiatic panther. Indeed it is much easier to distinguish between the skeletons of a Bushman and a Caucasian,

* Caldwell on the Unity of the Human Race, p. 51. Cincinnati, 1852.

+ Browne's classification of mankind by the hair and wool of their heads. Philadelphia, 1853.

than between those of any two species of the cat kind that are similar in size. We may safely add, that there is no more difficulty in distinguishing between the African and Caucasian skeletons, than between those of the horse and the ox." *

Says Van Amringe:-"The horse and the ass, the lion and the tiger, the hyena and the wolf, the goat and the sheep are not more distinct in their species, their sexual relations and their tastes, than the different species of the human family."

In answer to these facts it is alleged by Prichard and others, that in Piedmont, Normandy, Bavaria, Hungary, Franconia, Corsica, England and the United States, climate, food and other physical causes have produced in horses, black cattle, pigs, chickens, &c., numerous and great changes in form, size and color.

But man has resided in those countries as long, or longer than most of his domestic animals; and those same physical causes to whose action he also has been exposed, have produced no such mutation in him. And this brings us to

Third, The argument from HISTORY and archæology.

No new races of men have ever appeared on the earth, so far back as authentic history, or even tradition goes, save by the intermixture of two or more separate stocks.

The influence of a tropical sun and atmosphere imbrowns the complexions of Europeans and affects their health, vigor and longevity, as the cold of a Northern climate does those of the negro, but in neither case is any change produced indicating the slightest tendency to the formation of a new race.

As far back as history goes, tho existing races appear to have the same physical and mental characteristics which distinguish them at present. Herodotus (B. C. 450) speaks of black woolly haired Africans, and describes the other races of men as we find them to-day.

Skulls found in the most ancient mounds of America and even the fossil remains found in the Island of Guadaloupe, present the American type of cranium as unmistakably as the most modern

ones.

* Unity of the Human Race, p. 59.

The Egyptians appear to have divided mankind, or rather the nations known to them, into four races, which appear on monuments side by side, and colored respectively white, red, yellow and black. The full length figures painted white correspond in appearance with the European or Japhetic family, the red with the Egyptian, Chamitic or Hamitic, the yellow with the Asiatic, Jewish or Semitic and the black with the negro races. These four types are represented thus on monuments of the undoubted date of 1500, B. C.

The monuments themselves go back as far at least as the 33d century before the Christian era, while the epoch of Menes, the first king who united upper and lower Egypt and who lived about four hundred years before the building of the first pyramid was

And the pictorial representations of the Egyptians proper by themselves from the 3d to the 35th century B. C. agree in representing them as of but one and the same type. This may be seen by any one who will consult the great works of Denon, Champollion, Rosseline and Lepsius. What this type was is now accurately known, from the scientific examination of their mummified remains by Dr. S. G. Morton. "In their physical character the Egyptians were intermediate between the Indo-European and Semitic races. * * The teeth differ in nothing from The hair of

those of other Caucassian nations. *

*Types of Mankind, p. 675.

the Egyptians resembled in texture that of the fairest Europeans of the present day."*

On the other hand, the mummified remains of negroes and other races of men have also been identified in the Catacombs.

"Negroes were numerous in Egypt, but their social position in ancient times was the same that it is now, that of servants or slaves. **** They are abundantly represented on the pictorial delineations of the Egyptian monuments. Complexion, features, expression, these and every other attribute of the race are depicted precisely as we are accustomed to see them in our daily walks; indeed, were we to judge by the drawings alone, we might suppose them to have been executed but yesterday; and yet some of these vivid delineations are nearly three thousand five hundred years old; and, moreover, as if to enforce the distinction of race by direct contrast, they are placed side by side with people of the purest Caucasian features."+

These facts are hard to get over. Their force can only be obviated by a resort to one of three suppositions.

1. Miracle. But this would be wholly gratuitous, and to call in its aid would be, in effect, to give up the whole question.

2. The supposition that causes operated in the infancy of mankind which do not operate now. But of this, not a particle of proof is, or can be, alleged.

3. That mankind have existed on the earth for a much longer period than is usually supposed. And this is precisely the refuge resorted to by Prichard, the Champion of the "Unity" doctrine. "The Hebrew chronology," says he, "may be computed with accuracy to the era of the building of the temple, or at least to that of the division of the tribes. In the interval between that date and the arrival of Abraham in Palestine, it cannot be ascertained with exactness, but it may be computed with a near approximation to truth. Beyond that event we can never know how many centuries, nor even how many CHILIADS OF YEARS may have elapsed since the first man of clay received the image of God, and the breath of life" We know that one type of man has not been transmuted into another in 3000 years; we do not know certainly that 100,000 years might not do it.

*Crania Egyptiaca, p. 66.

Ibid, pp. 66, 60.

Physical history of mankind, vol. 5, p. 570.