At a much earlier period the uterus was double; the excreta were voided through a cloaca; and the eye was protected by a third eyelid or nict.i.tating membrane. At a still earlier period the progenitors of man must have been aquatic in their habits; for morphology plainly tells us that our lungs consist of a modified swim-bladder, which once served as a float. The clefts on the neck in the embryo of man show where the branchiae once existed. At about this period the true kidneys were replaced by the corpora Wolffiana. The heart existed as a simple pulsating vessel; and the chorda dorsalis took the place of a vertebral column. These early predecessors of man, thus seen in the dim recesses of time, must have been as lowly organised as the lancelet or amphioxus, or even still more lowly organised.
There is one other point deserving a fuller notice. It has long been known that in the vertebrate kingdom one s.e.x bears rudiments of various accessory parts, appertaining to the reproductive system, which properly belong to the opposite s.e.x; and it has now been ascertained that at a very early embryonic period both s.e.xes possess true male and female glands. Hence some extremely remote progenitor of the whole vertebrate kingdom appears to have been hermaphrodite or androgynous.[277] But here we encounter a singular difficulty. In the mammalian cla.s.s the males possess in their vesiculae prostaticae rudiments of a uterus with the adjacent pa.s.sage; they bear also rudiments of mammae, and some male marsupials have rudiments of a marsupial sack.[278] Other a.n.a.logous facts could be added. Are we, then, to suppose that some extremely ancient mammal possessed organs proper to both s.e.xes, that is, continued androgynous after it had acquired the chief distinctions of its proper cla.s.s, and therefore after it had diverged from the lower cla.s.ses of the vertebrate kingdom? This seems improbable in the highest degree; for had this been the case, we might have expected that some few members of the two lower cla.s.ses, namely fishes[279] and amphibians, would still have remained androgynous. We must, on the contrary, believe that when the five vertebrate cla.s.ses diverged from their common progenitor the s.e.xes had already become separated. To account, however, for male mammals possessing rudiments of the accessory female organs, and for female mammals possessing rudiments of the masculine organs, we need not suppose that their early progenitors were still androgynous after they had a.s.sumed their chief mammalian characters. It is quite possible that as the one s.e.x gradually acquired the accessory organs proper to it, some of the successive steps or modifications were transmitted to the opposite s.e.x. When we treat of s.e.xual selection, we shall meet with innumerable instances of this form of transmission,-as in the case of the spurs, plumes, and brilliant colours, acquired by male birds for battle or ornament, and transferred to the females in an imperfect or rudimentary condition.
The possession by male mammals of functionally imperfect mammary organs is, in some respects, especially curious. The Monotremata have the proper milk-secreting glands with orifices, but no nipples; and as these animals stand at the very base of the mammalian series, it is probable that the progenitors of the cla.s.s possessed, in like manner, the milk-secreting glands, but no nipples. This conclusion is supported by what is known of their manner of development; for Professor Turner informs me, on the authority of Kolliker and Lauger, that in the embryo the mammary glands can be distinctly traced before the nipples are in the least visible; and it should be borne in mind that the development of successive parts in the individual generally seems to represent and accord with the development of successive beings in the same line of descent. The Marsupials differ from the Monotremata by possessing nipples; so that these organs were probably first acquired by the Marsupials after they had diverged from, and risen above, the Monotremata, and were then transmitted to the placental mammals. No one will suppose that after the Marsupials had approximately acquired their present structure, and therefore at a rather late period in the development of the mammalian series, any of its members still remained androgynous. We seem, therefore, compelled to recur to the foregoing view, and to conclude that the nipples were first developed in the females of some very early marsupial form, and were then, in accordance with a common law of inheritance, transferred in a functionally imperfect condition to the males.
Nevertheless a suspicion has sometimes crossed my mind that long after the progenitors of the whole mammalian cla.s.s had ceased to be androgynous, both s.e.xes might have yielded milk and thus nourished their young; and in the case of the Marsupials, that both s.e.xes might have carried their young in marsupial sacks. This will not appear utterly incredible, if we reflect that the males of syngnathous fishes receive the eggs of the females in their abdominal pouches, hatch them, and afterwards, as some believe, nourish the young;[280]-that certain other male fishes hatch the eggs within their mouths or branchial cavities;-that certain male toads take the chaplets of eggs from the females and wind them round their own thighs, keeping them there until the tadpoles are born;-that certain male birds undertake the whole duty of incubation, and that male pigeons, as well as the females, feed their nestlings with a secretion from their crops. But the above suspicion first occurred to me from the mammary glands in male mammals being developed so much more perfectly than the rudiments of those other accessory reproductive parts, which are found in the one s.e.x though proper to the other. The mammary glands and nipples, as they exist in male mammals, can indeed hardly be called rudimentary; they are simply not fully developed and not functionally active. They are sympathetically affected under the influence of certain diseases, like the same organs in the female. At birth they often secrete a few drops of milk; and they have been known occasionally in man and other mammals to become well developed, and to yield a fair supply of milk. Now if we suppose that during a former prolonged period male mammals aided the females in nursing their offspring, and that afterwards from some cause, as from a smaller number of young being produced, the males ceased giving this aid, disuse of the organs during maturity would lead to their becoming inactive; and from two well-known principles of inheritance this state of inactivity would probably be transmitted to the males at the corresponding age of maturity. But at all earlier ages these organs would be left unaffected, so that they would be equally well developed in the young of both s.e.xes.
_Conclusion._-The best definition of advancement or progress in the organic scale ever given, is that by Von Baer; and this rests on the amount of differentiation and specialisation of the several parts of the same being, when arrived, as I should be inclined to add, at maturity.
Now as organisms have become slowly adapted by means of natural selection for diversified lines of life, their parts will have become, from the advantage gained by the division of physiological labour, more and more differentiated and specialised for various functions. The same part appears often to have been modified first for one purpose, and then long afterwards for some other and quite distinct purpose; and thus all the parts are rendered more and more complex. But each organism will still retain the general type of structure of the progenitor from which it was aboriginally derived. In accordance with this view it seems, if we turn to geological evidence, that organisation on the whole has advanced throughout the world by slow and interrupted steps. In the great kingdom of the Vertebrata it has culminated in man. It must not, however, be supposed that groups of organic beings are always supplanted and disappear as soon as they have given birth to other and more perfect groups. The latter, though victorious over their predecessors, may not have become better adapted for all places in the economy of nature. Some old forms appear to have survived from inhabiting protected sites, where they have not been exposed to very severe compet.i.tion; and these often aid us in constructing our genealogies, by giving us a fair idea of former and lost populations. But we must not fall into the error of looking at the existing members of any lowly-organised group as perfect representatives of their ancient predecessors.
The most ancient progenitors in the kingdom of the Vertebrata, at which we are able to obtain an obscure glance, apparently consisted of a group of marine animals,[281] resembling the larvae of existing Ascidians.
These animals probably gave rise to a group of fishes, as lowly organised as the lancelet; and from these the Ganoids, and other fishes like the Lepidosiren, must have been developed. From such fish a very small advance would carry us on to the amphibians. We have seen that birds and reptiles were once intimately connected together; and the Monotremata now, in a slight degree, connect mammals with reptiles. But no one can at present say by what line of descent the three higher and related cla.s.ses, namely, mammals, birds, and reptiles, were derived from either of the two lower vertebrate cla.s.ses, namely amphibians and fishes. In the cla.s.s of mammals the steps are not difficult to conceive which led from the ancient Monotremata to the ancient Marsupials; and from these to the early progenitors of the placental mammals. We may thus ascend to the Lemuridae; and the interval is not wide from these to the Simiadae. The Simiadae then branched off into two great stems, the New World and Old World monkeys; and from the latter, at a remote period, Man, the wonder and glory of the Universe, proceeded.
Thus we have given to man a pedigree of prodigious length, but not, it may be said, of n.o.ble quality. The world, it has often been remarked, appears as if it had long been preparing for the advent of man; and this, in one sense is strictly true, for he owes his birth to a long line of progenitors. If any single link in this chain had never existed, man would not have been exactly what he now is. Unless we wilfully close our eyes, we may, with our present knowledge, approximately recognise our parentage; nor need we feel ashamed of it. The most humble organism is something much higher than the inorganic dust under our feet; and no one with an unbia.s.sed mind can study any living creature, however humble, without being struck with enthusiasm at its marvellous structure and properties.
CHAPTER VII.
ON THE RACES OF MAN.
The nature and value of specific characters-Application to the races of man-Arguments in favour of, and opposed to, ranking the so-called races of man as distinct species-Sub-species-Monogenists and polygenists-Convergence of character-Numerous points of resemblance in body and mind between the most distinct races of man-The state of man when he first spread over the earth-Each race not descended from a single pair-The extinction of races-The formation of races-The effects of crossing-Slight influence of the direct action of the conditions of life-Slight or no influence of natural selection-s.e.xual selection.
It is not my intention here to describe the several so-called races of men; but to inquire what is the value of the differences between them under a cla.s.sificatory point of view, and how they have originated. In determining whether two or more allied forms ought to be ranked as species or varieties, naturalists are practically guided by the following considerations; namely, the amount of difference between them, and whether such differences relate to few or many points of structure, and whether they are of physiological importance; but more especially whether they are constant. Constancy of character is what is chiefly valued and sought for by naturalists. Whenever it can be shewn, or rendered probable, that the forms in question have remained distinct for a long period, this becomes an argument of much weight in favour of treating them as species. Even a slight degree of sterility between any two forms when first crossed, or in their offspring, is generally considered as a decisive test of their specific distinctness; and their continued persistence without blending within the same area, is usually accepted as sufficient evidence, either of some degree of mutual sterility, or in the case of animals of some repugnance to mutual pairing.
Independently of blending from intercrossing, the complete absence, in a well-investigated region, of varieties linking together any two closely-allied forms, is probably the most important of all the criterions of their specific distinctness; and this is a somewhat different consideration from mere constancy of character, for two forms may be highly variable and yet not yield intermediate varieties.
Geographical distribution is often unconsciously and sometimes consciously brought into play; so that forms living in two widely separated areas, in which most of the other inhabitants are specifically distinct, are themselves usually looked at as distinct; but in truth this affords no aid in distinguishing geographical races from so-called good or true species.
Now let us apply these generally-admitted principles to the races of man, viewing him in the same spirit as a naturalist would any other animal. In regard to the amount of difference between the races, we must make some allowance for our nice powers of discrimination gained by the long habit of observing ourselves. In India, as Elphinstone remarks,[282] although a newly-arrived European cannot at first distinguish the various native races, yet they soon appear to him extremely dissimilar; and the Hindoo cannot at first perceive any difference between the several European nations. Even the most distinct races of man, with the exception of certain negro tribes, are much more like each other in form than would at first be supposed. This is well shewn by the French photographs in the Collection Anthropologique du Museum of the men belonging to various races, the greater number of which, as many persons to whom I have shown them have remarked, might pa.s.s for Europeans. Nevertheless, these men if seen alive would undoubtedly appear very distinct, so that we are clearly much influenced in our judgment by the mere colour of the skin and hair, by slight differences in the features, and by expression.
There is, however, no doubt that the various races, when carefully compared and measured, differ much from each other,-as in the texture of the hair, the relative proportions of all parts of the body,[283] the capacity of the lungs, the form and capacity of the skull, and even in the convolutions of the brain.[284] But it would be an endless task to specify the numerous points of structural difference. The races differ also in const.i.tution, in acclimatisation, and in liability to certain diseases. Their mental characteristics are likewise very distinct; chiefly as it would appear in their emotional, but partly in their intellectual, faculties. Every one who has had the opportunity of comparison, must have been struck with the contrast between the taciturn, even morose, aborigines of S. America and the light-hearted, talkative negroes. There is a nearly similar contrast between the Malays and the Papuans,[285] who live under the same physical conditions, and are separated from each other only by a narrow s.p.a.ce of sea.
We will first consider the arguments which may be advanced in favour of cla.s.sing the races of man as distinct species, and then those on the other side. If a naturalist, who had never before seen such beings, were to compare a Negro, Hottentot, Australian, or Mongolian, he would at once perceive that they differed in a mult.i.tude of characters, some of slight and some of considerable importance. On inquiry he would find that they were adapted to live under widely different climates, and that they differed somewhat in bodily const.i.tution and mental disposition. If he were then told that hundreds of similar specimens could be brought from the same countries, he would a.s.suredly declare that they were as good species as many to which he had been in the habit of affixing specific names. This conclusion would be greatly strengthened as soon as he had ascertained that these forms had all retained the same character for many centuries; and that negroes, apparently identical with existing negroes, had lived at least 4000 years ago.[286] He would also hear from an excellent observer, Dr. Lund,[287] that the human skulls found in the caves of Brazil, entombed with many extinct mammals, belonged to the same type as that now prevailing throughout the American Continent.
Our naturalist would then perhaps turn to geographical distribution, and he would probably declare that forms differing not only in appearance, but fitted for the hottest and dampest or driest countries, as well as for the arctic regions, must be distinct species. He might appeal to the fact that no one species in the group next to man, namely the Quadrumana, can resist a low temperature or any considerable change of climate; and that those species which come nearest to man have never been reared to maturity, even under the temperate climate of Europe. He would be deeply impressed with the fact, first noticed by Aga.s.siz,[288]
that the different races of man are distributed over the world in the same zoological provinces, as those inhabited by undoubtedly distinct species and genera of mammals. This is manifestly the case with the Australian, Mongolian, and Negro races of man; in a less well-marked manner with the Hottentots; but plainly with the Papuans and Malays, who are separated, as Mr. Wallace has shewn, by nearly the same line which divides the great Malayan and Australian zoological provinces. The aborigines of America range throughout the Continent; and this at first appears opposed to the above rule, for most of the productions of the Southern and Northern halves differ widely; yet some few living forms, as the opossum, range from the one into the other, as did formerly some of the gigantic Edentata. The Esquimaux, like other Arctic animals, extend round the whole polar regions. It should be observed that the mammalian forms which inhabit the several zoological provinces, do not differ from each other in the same degree; so that it can hardly be considered as an anomaly that the Negro differs more, and the American much less, from the other races of man than do the mammals of the same continents from those of the other provinces. Man, it may be added, does not appear to have aboriginally inhabited any oceanic island; and in this respect he resembles the other members of his cla.s.s.
In determining whether the varieties of the same kind of domestic animal should be ranked as specifically distinct, that is, whether any of them are descended from distinct wild species, every naturalist would lay much stress on the fact, if established, of their external parasites being specifically distinct. All the more stress would be laid on this fact, as it would be an exceptional one, for I am informed by Mr. Denny that the most different kinds of dogs, fowls, and pigeons, in England, are infested by the same species of Pediculi or lice. Now Mr. A. Murray has carefully examined the Pediculi collected in different countries from the different races of man;[289] and he finds that they differ, not only in colour, but in the structure of their claws and limbs. In every case in which numerous specimens were obtained the differences were constant. The surgeon of a whaling ship in the Pacific a.s.sured me that when the Pediculi, with which some Sandwich Islanders on board swarmed, strayed on to the bodies of the English sailors, they died in the course of three or four days. These Pediculi were darker coloured and appeared different from those proper to the natives of Chiloe in South America, of which he gave me specimens. These, again, appeared larger and much softer than European lice. Mr. Murray procured four kinds from Africa, namely from the Negroes of the Eastern and Western coasts, from the Hottentots and Caffres; two kinds from the natives of Australia; two from North, and two from South America. In these latter cases it may be presumed that the Pediculi came from natives inhabiting different districts. With insects slight structural differences, if constant, are generally esteemed of specific value: and the fact of the races of man being infested by parasites, which appear to be specifically distinct, might fairly be urged as an argument that the races themselves ought to be cla.s.sed as distinct species.
Our supposed naturalist having proceeded thus far in his investigation, would next inquire whether the races of men, when crossed, were in any degree sterile. He might consult the work[290] of a cautious and philosophical observer, Professor Broca; and in this he would find good, evidence that some races were quite fertile together; but evidence of an opposite nature in regard to other races. Thus it has been a.s.serted that the native women of Australia and Tasmania rarely produce children to European men; the evidence, however, on this head has now been shewn to be almost valueless. The half-castes are killed by the pure blacks; and an account has lately been published of eleven half-caste youths murdered and burnt at the same time, whose remains were found by the police.[291] Again, it has often been said that when mulattoes intermarry they produce few children; on the other hand, Dr. Bachman of Charlestown[292] positively a.s.serts that he has known mulatto families which have intermarried for several generations, and have continued on an average as fertile as either pure whites or pure blacks. Inquiries formerly made by Sir C. Lyell on this subject led him, as he informs me, to the same conclusion. In the United States the census for the year 1854 included, according to Dr. Bachman, 405,751 mulattoes; and this number, considering all the circ.u.mstances of the case, seems small; but it may partly be accounted for by the degraded and anomalous position of the cla.s.s, and by the profligacy of the women. A certain amount of absorption of mulattoes into negroes must always be in progress; and this would lead to an apparent diminution of the former. The inferior vitality of mulattoes is spoken of in a trustworthy work[293] as a well-known phenomenon; but this is a different consideration from their lessened fertility; and can hardly be advanced as a proof of the specific distinctness of the parent races. No doubt both animal and vegetable hybrids, when produced from extremely distinct species, are liable to premature death; but the parents of mulattoes cannot be put under the category of extremely distinct species. The common Mule, so notorious for long life and vigour, and yet so sterile, shews how little necessary connection there is in hybrids between lessened fertility and vitality: other a.n.a.logous cases could be added.
Even if it should hereafter be proved that all the races of men were perfectly fertile together, he who was inclined from other reasons to rank them as distinct species, might with justice argue that fertility and sterility are not safe criterions of specific distinctness. We know that these qualities are easily affected by changed conditions of life or by close inter-breeding, and that they are governed by highly complex laws, for instance that of the unequal fertility of reciprocal crosses between the same two species. With forms which must be ranked as undoubted species, a perfect series exists from those which are absolutely sterile when crossed, to those which are almost or quite fertile. The degrees of sterility do not coincide strictly with the degrees of difference in external structure or habits of life. Man in many respects may be compared with those animals which have long been domesticated, and a large body of evidence can be advanced in favour of the Pallasian doctrine[294] that domestication tends to eliminate the sterility which is so general a result of the crossing of species in a state of nature. From these several considerations, it may be justly urged that the perfect fertility of the intercrossed races of man, if established, would not absolutely preclude us from ranking them as distinct species.
Independently of fertility, the character of the offspring from a cross has sometimes been thought to afford evidence whether the parent-forms ought to be ranked as species or varieties; but after carefully studying the evidence, I have come to the conclusion that no general rules of this kind can be trusted. Thus with mankind the offspring of distinct races resemble in all respects the offspring of true species and of varieties. This is shewn, for instance, by the manner in which the characters of both parents are blended, and by one form absorbing another through repeated crosses. In this latter case the progeny both of crossed species and varieties retain for a long period a tendency to revert to their ancestors, especially to that one which is prepotent in transmission. When any character has suddenly appeared in a race or species as the result of a single act of variation, as is general with monstrosities,[295] and this race is crossed with another not thus characterised, the characters in question do not commonly appear in a blended condition in the young, but are transmitted to them either perfectly developed or not at all. As with the crossed races of man cases of this kind rarely or never occur, this may be used as an argument against the view suggested by some ethnologists, namely that certain characters, for instance the blackness of the negro, first appeared as a sudden variation or sport. Had this occurred, it is probable that mulattoes would often have been born, either completely black or completely white.
We have now seen that a naturalist might feel himself fully justified in ranking the races of man as distinct species; for he has found that they are distinguished by many differences in structure and const.i.tution, some being of importance. These differences have, also, remained nearly constant for very long periods of time. He will have been in some degree influenced by the enormous range of man, which is a great anomaly in the cla.s.s of mammals, if mankind be viewed as a single species. He will have been struck with the distribution of the several so-called races, in accordance with that of other undoubtedly distinct species of mammals.
Finally he might urge that the mutual fertility of all the races has not as yet been fully proved; and even if proved would not be an absolute proof of their specific ident.i.ty.
On the other side of the question, if our supposed naturalist were to enquire whether the forms of man kept distinct like ordinary species, when mingled together in large numbers in the same country, he would immediately discover that this was by no means the case. In Brazil he would behold an immense mongrel population of Negroes and Portuguese; in Chiloe and other parts of South America, he would behold the whole population consisting of Indians and Spaniards blended in various degrees.[296] In many parts of the same continent he would meet with the most complex crosses between Negroes, Indians, and Europeans; and such triple crosses afford the severest test, judging from the vegetable kingdom, of the mutual fertility of the parent-forms. In one island of the Pacific he would find a small population of mingled Polynesian and English blood; and in the Viti Archipelago a population of Polynesians and Negritos crossed in all degrees. Many a.n.a.logous cases could be added, for instance, in South Africa. Hence the races of man are not sufficiently distinct to co-exist without fusion; and this it is, which in all ordinary cases affords the usual test of specific distinctness.
Our naturalist would likewise be much disturbed as soon as he perceived that the distinctive characters of every race of man were highly variable. This strikes every one when he first beholds the negro-slaves in Brazil, who have been imported from all parts of Africa. The same remark holds good with the Polynesians, and with many other races. It may be doubted whether any character can be named which is distinctive of a race and is constant. Savages, even within the limits of the same tribe, are not nearly so uniform in character, as has often been said.
Hottentot women offer certain peculiarities, more strongly marked than those occurring in any other race, but these are known not to be of constant occurrence. In the several American tribes, colour and hairyness differ considerably; as does colour to a certain degree, and the shape of the features greatly, in the Negroes of Africa. The shape of the skull varies much in some races;[297] and so it is with every other character. Now all naturalists have learnt by dearly-bought experience, how rash it is to attempt to define species by the aid of inconstant characters.
But the most weighty of all the arguments against treating the races of man as distinct species, is that they graduate into each other, independently in many cases, as far as we can judge, of their having intercrossed. Man has been studied more carefully than any other organic being, and yet there is the greatest possible diversity amongst capable judges whether he should be cla.s.sed as a single species or race, or as two (Virey), as three (Jacquinot), as four (Kant), five (Blumenbach), six (Buffon), seven (Hunter), eight (Aga.s.siz), eleven (Pickering), fifteen (Bory St. Vincent), sixteen (Desmoulins), twenty-two (Morton), sixty (Crawfurd), or as sixty-three, according to Burke.[298] This diversity of judgment does not prove that the races ought not to be ranked as species, but it shews that they graduate into each other, and that it is hardly possible to discover clear distinctive characters between them.
Every naturalist who has had the misfortune to undertake the description of a group of highly varying organisms, has encountered cases (I speak after experience) precisely like that of man; and if of a cautious disposition, he will end by uniting all the forms which graduate into each other as a single species; for he will say to himself that he has no right to give names to objects which he cannot define.
Cases of this kind occur in the Order which includes man, namely in certain genera of monkeys; whilst in other genera, as in Cercopithecus, most of the species can be determined with certainty. In the American genus Cebus, the various forms are ranked by some naturalists as species, by others as mere geographical races. Now if numerous specimens of Cebus were collected from all parts of South America, and those forms which at present appear to be specifically distinct, were found to graduate into each other by close steps, they would be ranked by most naturalists as mere varieties or races; and thus the greater number of naturalists have acted with respect to the races of man. Nevertheless it must be confessed that there are forms, at least in the vegetable kingdom,[299] which we cannot avoid naming as species, but which are connected together, independently of intercrossing, by numberless gradations.
Some naturalists have lately employed the term "sub-species" to designate forms which possess many of the characteristics of true species, but which hardly deserve so high a rank. Now if we reflect on the weighty arguments, above given, for raising the races of man to the dignity of species, and the insuperable difficulties on the other side in defining them, the term "sub-species" might here be used with much propriety. But from long habit the term "race" will perhaps always be employed. The choice of terms is only so far important as it is highly desirable to use, as far as that may be possible, the same terms for the same degrees of difference. Unfortunately this is rarely possible; for within the same family the larger genera generally include closely-allied forms, which can be distinguished only with much difficulty, whilst the smaller genera include forms that are perfectly distinct; yet all must equally be ranked as species. So again the species within the same large genus by no means resemble each other to the same degree: on the contrary, in most cases some of them can be arranged in little groups round other species, like satellites round planets.[300]
The question whether mankind consists of one or several species has of late years been much agitated by anthropologists, who are divided into two schools of monogenists and polygenists. Those who do not admit the principle of evolution, must look at species either as separate creations or as in some manner distinct ent.i.ties; and they must decide what forms to rank as species by the a.n.a.logy of other organic beings which are commonly thus received. But it is a hopeless endeavour to decide this point on sound grounds, until some definition of the term "species" is generally accepted; and the definition must not include an element which cannot possibly be ascertained, such as an act of creation. We might as well attempt without any definition to decide whether a certain number of houses should be called a village, or town, or city. We have a practical ill.u.s.tration of the difficulty in the never-ending doubts whether many closely-allied mammals, birds, insects, and plants, which represent each other in North America and Europe, should be ranked species or geographical races; and so it is with the productions of many islands situated at some little distance from the nearest continent.
Those naturalists, on the other hand, who admit the principle of evolution, and this is now admitted by the greater number of rising men, will feel no doubt that all the races of man are descended from a single primitive stock; whether or not they think fit to designate them as distinct species, for the sake of expressing their amount of difference.[301] With our domestic animals the question whether the various races have arisen from one or more species is different.
Although all such races, as well as all the natural species within the same genus, have undoubtedly sprung from the same primitive stock, yet it is a fit subject for discussion, whether, for instance, all the domestic races of the dog have acquired their present differences since some one species was first domesticated and bred by man; or whether they owe some of their characters to inheritance from distinct species, which had already been modified in a state of nature. With mankind no such question can arise, for he cannot be said to have been domesticated at any particular period.
When the races of man diverged at an extremely remote epoch from their common progenitor, they will have differed but little from each other, and been few in number; consequently they will then, as far as their distinguishing characters are concerned, have had less claim to rank as distinct species, than the existing so-called races. Nevertheless such early races would perhaps have been ranked by some naturalists as distinct species, so arbitrary is the term, if their differences, although extremely slight, had been more constant than at present, and had not graduated into each other.
It is, however, possible, though far from probable, that the early progenitors of man might at first have diverged much in character, until they became more unlike each other than are any existing races; but that subsequently, as suggested by Vogt,[302] they converged in character.
When man selects for the same object the offspring of two distinct species, he sometimes induces, as far as general appearance is concerned, a considerable amount of convergence. This is the case, as shewn by Von Nathusius,[303] with the improved breeds of pigs, which are descended from two distinct species; and in a less well-marked manner with the improved breeds of cattle. A great anatomist, Gratiolet, maintains that the anthropomorphous apes do not form a natural sub-group; but that the orang is a highly developed gibbon or semnopithecus; the chimpanzee a highly developed macacus; and the gorilla a highly developed mandrill. If this conclusion, which rests almost exclusively on brain-characters, be admitted, we should have a case of convergence at least in external characters, for the anthropomorphous apes are certainly more like each other in many points than they are to other apes. All a.n.a.logical resemblances, as of a whale to a fish, may indeed be said to be cases of convergence; but this term has never been applied to superficial and adaptive resemblances. It would be extremely rash in most cases to attribute to convergence close similarity in many points of structure in beings which had once been widely different. The form of a crystal is determined solely by the molecular forces, and it is not surprising that dissimilar substances should sometimes a.s.sume the same form; but with organic beings we should bear in mind that the form of each depends on an infinitude of complex relations, namely on the variations which have arisen, these being due to causes far too intricate to be followed out,-on the nature of the variations which have been preserved, and this depends on the surrounding physical conditions, and in a still higher degree on the surrounding organisms with which each has come into compet.i.tion,-and lastly, on inheritance (in itself a fluctuating element) from innumerable progenitors, all of which have had their forms determined through equally complex relations. It appears utterly incredible that two organisms, if differing in a marked manner, should ever afterwards converge so closely as to lead to a near approach to ident.i.ty throughout their whole organisation. In the case of the convergent pigs above referred to, evidence of their descent from two primitive stocks is still plainly retained, according to Von Nathusius, in certain bones of their skulls. If the races of man were descended, as supposed by some naturalists, from two or more distinct species, which had differed as much, or nearly as much, from each other, as the orang differs from the gorilla, it can hardly be doubted that marked differences in the structure of certain bones would still have been discoverable in man as he now exists.
Although the existing races of man differ in many respects, as in colour, hair, shape of skull, proportions of the body, &c., yet if their whole organisation be taken into consideration they are found to resemble each other closely in a mult.i.tude of points. Many of these points are of so unimportant or of so singular a nature, that it is extremely improbable that they should have been independently acquired by aboriginally distinct species or races. The same remark holds good with equal or greater force with respect to the numerous points of mental similarity between the most distinct races of man. The American aborigines, Negroes and Europeans differ as much from each other in mind as any three races that can be named; yet I was incessantly struck, whilst living with the Fuegians on board the "Beagle," with the many little traits of character, shewing how similar their minds were to ours; and so it was with a full-blooded negro with whom I happened once to be intimate.
He who will carefully read Mr. Tylor"s and Sir J. Lubbock"s interesting works[304] can hardly fail to be deeply impressed with the close similarity between the men of all races in tastes, dispositions and habits. This is shewn by the pleasure which they all take in dancing, rude music, acting, painting, tattooing, and otherwise decorating themselves,-in their mutual comprehension of gesture-language-and, as I shall be able to shew in a future essay, by the same expression in their features, and by the same inarticulate cries, when they are excited by various emotions. This similarity, or rather ident.i.ty, is striking, when contrasted with the different expressions which may be observed in distinct species of monkeys. There is good evidence that the art of shooting with bows and arrows has not been handed down from any common progenitor of mankind, yet the stone arrow-heads, brought from the most distant parts of the world and manufactured at the most remote periods, are, as Nilsson has shewn,[305] almost identical; and this fact can only be accounted for by the various races having similar inventive or mental powers. The same observation has been made by archaeologists[306] with respect to certain widely-prevalent ornaments, such as zigzags, &c.; and with respect to various simple beliefs and customs, such as the burying of the dead under megalithic structures. I remember observing in South America,[307] that there, as in so many other parts of the world, man has generally chosen the summits of lofty hills, on which to throw up piles of stones, either for the sake of recording some remarkable event, or for burying his dead.
Now when naturalists observe a close agreement in numerous small details of habits, tastes and dispositions between two or more domestic races, or between nearly-allied natural forms, they use this fact as an argument that all are descended from a common progenitor who was thus endowed; and consequently that all should be cla.s.sed under the same species. The same argument may be applied with much force to the races of man.
As it is improbable that the numerous and unimportant points of resemblance between the several races of man in bodily structure and mental faculties (I do not here refer to similar customs) should all have been independently acquired, they must have been inherited from progenitors who were thus characterised. We thus gain some insight into the early state of man, before he had spread step by step over the face of the earth. The spreading of man to regions widely separated by the sea, no doubt, preceded any considerable amount of divergence of character in the several races; for otherwise we should sometimes meet with the same race in distinct continents; and this is never the case.
Sir J. Lubbock, after comparing the arts now practised by savages in all parts of the world, specifies those which man could not have known, when he first wandered from his original birthplace; for if once learnt they would never have been forgotten.[308] He thus shews that "the spear, which is but a development of the knife-point, and the club, which is but a long hammer, are the only things left." He admits, however, that the art of making fire probably had already been discovered, for it is common to all the races now existing, and was known to the ancient cave-inhabitants of Europe. Perhaps the art of making rude canoes or rafts was likewise known; but as man existed at a remote epoch, when the land in many places stood at a very different level, he would have been able, without the aid of canoes, to have spread widely. Sir J. Lubbock further remarks how improbable it is that our earliest ancestors could have "counted as high as ten, considering that so many races now in existence cannot get beyond four." Nevertheless, at this early period, the intellectual and social faculties of man could hardly have been inferior in any extreme degree to those now possessed by the lowest savages; otherwise primeval man could not have been so eminently successful in the struggle for life, as proved by his early and wide diffusion.
From the fundamental differences between certain languages, some philologists have inferred that when man first became widely diffused he was not a speaking animal; but it may be suspected that languages, far less perfect than any now spoken, aided by gestures, might have been used, and yet have left no traces on subsequent and more highly-developed tongues. Without the use of some language, however imperfect, it appears doubtful whether man"s intellect could have risen to the standard implied by his dominant position at an early period.
Whether primeval man, when he possessed very few arts of the rudest kind, and when his power of language was extremely imperfect, would have deserved to be called man, must depend on the definition which we employ. In a series of forms graduating insensibly from some ape-like creature to man as he now exists, it would be impossible to fix on any definite point when the term "man" ought to be used. But this is a matter of very little importance. So again it is almost a matter of indifference whether the so-called races of man are thus designated, or are ranked as species or sub-species; but the latter term appears the most appropriate. Finally, we may conclude that when the principles of evolution are generally accepted, as they surely will be before long, the dispute between the monogenists and the polygenists will die a silent and un.o.bserved death.
One other question ought not to be pa.s.sed over without notice, namely, whether, as is sometimes a.s.sumed, each sub-species or race of man has sprung from a single pair of progenitors. With our domestic animals a new race can readily be formed from a single pair possessing some new character, or even from a single individual thus characterised, by carefully matching the varying offspring; but most of our races have been formed, not intentionally from a selected pair, but unconsciously by the preservation of many individuals which have varied, however slightly, in some useful or desired manner. If in one country stronger and heavier horses, and in another country lighter and fleeter horses, were habitually preferred, we may feel sure that two distinct sub-breeds would, in the course of time, be produced, without any particular pairs or individuals having been separated and bred from in either country.
Many races have been thus formed, and their manner of formation is closely a.n.a.logous with that of natural species. We know, also, that the horses which have been brought to the Falkland Islands have become, during successive generations, smaller and weaker, whilst those which have run wild on the Pampas have acquired larger and coa.r.s.er heads; and such changes are manifestly due, not to any one pair, but to all the individuals having been subjected to the same conditions, aided, perhaps, by the principle of reversion. The new sub-breeds in none of these cases are descended from any single pair, but from many individuals which have varied in different degrees, but in the same general manner; and we may conclude that the races of man have been similarly produced, the modifications being either the direct result of exposure to different conditions, or the indirect result of some form of selection. But to this latter subject we shall presently return.
_On the Extinction of the Races of Man._-The partial and complete extinction of many races and sub-races of man are historically known events. Humboldt saw in South America a parrot which was the sole living creature that could speak the language of a lost tribe. Ancient monuments and stone implements found in all parts of the world, of which no tradition is preserved by the present inhabitants, indicate much extinction. Some small and broken tribes, remnants of former races, still survive in isolated and generally mountainous districts. In Europe the ancient races were all, according to Schaaffhausen,[309] "lower in the scale than the rudest living savages;" they must therefore have differed, to a certain extent, from any existing race. The remains described by Professor Broca[310] from Les Eyzies, though they unfortunately appear to have belonged to a single family, indicate a race with a most singular combination of low or simious and high characteristics, and is "entirely different from any other race, ancient or modern, that we have ever heard of." It differed, therefore, from the quaternary race of the caverns of Belgium.
Unfavourable physical conditions appear to have had but little effect in the extinction of races.[311] Man has long lived in the extreme regions of the North, with no wood wherewith to make his canoes or other implements, and with blubber alone for burning and giving him warmth, but more especially for melting the snow. In the Southern extremity of America the Fuegians survive without the protection of clothes, or of any building worthy to be called a hovel. In South Africa the aborigines wander over the most arid plains, where dangerous beasts abound. Man can withstand the deadly influence of the Terai at the foot of the Himalaya, and the pestilential sh.o.r.es of tropical Africa.