and comprehend; any appeal, on the other hand, to direct creation forecloses all inquiry, and places the matter at once beyond the range of scientific investigation.

ETHNOLOGICAL RELATIONS.

Distribution and Varietal Distinctions-Question of Species or Varieties-Plurality or Unity of Origin ?-Higher and Lower Varieties Relations of these in time and space-Lowly Origin of the Human Race-Question of Extinct VarietiesOur Third Proposition.

IF then, it be admitted that physical conditions-that is, situation, climate, food, and the like—in conjunction with other causes to be afterwards noticed, are instrumental in producing varietal distinctions among animals, to these we must also look for the ethnological differences that prevail among mankind. Admitting that man constitutes the only species of a single genus, there can be no doubt that his species presents several varieties and numerous sub-varieties, down even to minor and more limited distinctions. We say varieties, but it may be fairly questioned whether what are now called varieties would not have been regarded as distinct species, had zoologists had the courage to apply to man the same methods of differentiation that they are in the habit of applying to other animals. There is certainly a much wider difference between

the white man of Western Europe and the Bushman of Southern Africa, than there is between many socalled species; but the bias of preconceptions has left its mark on zoology as on other fields of thought, and we are constrained to follow the nomenclature in vogue more for the sake of being understood than from belief in its scientific accuracy. In many instances the so-called specific distinctions in zoology are founded on colour, covering, and other features often less marked than the corresponding characteristics in man; and yet men are arranged in varieties merely, while these lower animals are separated into species. Strip these "species" of their colours and covering, and the skeleton of the one could not be distinguished from that of the other; but place the skeleton of the African Negro beside that of the European White, and a child might detect the difference. A science so partial in its methods need scarcely be appealed to for anything decisive respecting the natural-history relations of man, and the anthropologist must mainly abide by his own deductions.

Seeing, then, that the great continents of the globe contain numerous nationalities which are admittedly the results of locality or physical surroundings, and that these nationalities gradually shade into each other on their respective confines, it may be further admitted that the so-called varieties which embrace

these nationalities owe, in like manner, their distinguishing characteristics mainly to the long-continued influence of geographical conditions-the principle of ascensive variation in time being always admitted and allowed for. In Europe, for example, French, Spaniards, Italians, and other minor contiguous sections, gradually shade into each other in form, feature, language, and other peculiarities, which have evidently been superinduced by their respective positions; and hence they are regarded, though belonging to different stocks, as coming under the same variety. As the minor differences are mainly owing to geographical relations, so we may ascribe the major distinctions to a similar causation acting through indefinite periods; and thus we may trace all the varietiesEuropean, Mongolian, Negro, etc.-as divergences from earlier varieties, and ultimately from one original source. We are aware that some naturalists, seeing the wide differences that exist between the so-called varieties, regard them as having sprung from different primordial sources, and therefore assign to them different specific centres of dispersion. But as these differences are not of equal value-that, for example, between the Caucasian and Mongol being not so great as that between the Caucasian and Negro, and that between the Mongol and Malay still less*-we think it

* The differences between these varieties being so unequal, some

unnecessary to complicate our argument with this view of equal and independent origin, and proceed to consider the major varieties as divergences from one common source, just as the minor nationalities can be shown, from their language, customs, and features, to be unmistakable offshoots from the same variety. It is no doubt quite possible that species might be independently created in the widely-separated areas in which we now find them; but the idea of their developmental descent from pre-existing forms, and in conformity to a great aboriginal plan, is much more probable, and far more intelligible. Even were the separate origin of the great varieties-Caucasian, Mongolian, Ethiopian, etc.-admitted, there is still the question, Did they originate simultaneously, or what was the order of their appearance? If not simultaneously, which was the earlier and which the later and if earlier and later, what were the peculiar conditions that favoured the advent of the former and

writers have recently adopted the idea of two great divisions of mankind, "equal in value, and marked by characteristics of equal importance"-viz. the whites and the blacks; the former including the so-called Caucasian, Mongolian, Malay, and American; and the latter, the African, Australasian, and Papuan or Oceanic. For the ultimate purposes of anthropological science this division is not without its value, and may be further referred to in Andrew Murray's important work on the Geographical Distribution of Mammals, 1866.