Page images

to the lap-dog, - all forming an immense variety, in which Cuvier admits “ that in form the differences are greater than those of any wild species of any natural genus.” Darwin, Var., etc., p. 49.

We might admit all that any naturalist has imagined -. no one has proved anything – in regard to a plural origin of the varieties of dogs, e. g., that they are derived from three, four, five, or six primordial stocks, as the wolf, the

jackal, the anthus, the dingo, the d'hole, or thus, etc., etc., to the number of some six or seven.* For Darwin (Variations, etc., i. p. 48) well remarks, “But we can not explain by crossing the origin of such extreme forms as thorough-bred greyhounds, bloodhounds, bull dogs, Blenheim spaniels, terriers, pugs, &c., unless we believe that forms equally or more strongly characterized in these different respects once existed in nature. But hardly any one has been bold enough to suppose that such unnatural forms ever did or could exist in a wild state."

The obvious truth of these remarks makes the illustrations drawn from the varieties of dogs perfectly conclusive.

6. Fowls. I must not omit to mention the great and marked varie* As Colonel Hamilton Smith, cited by Dr. Bachman, “Unity, &c.,” p. 61, from Dr. Morton. * But the writer of the article Man, in the Cyclopædia of Natural History, states, “No one ... will be inclined to deny that the varieties of dogs (which, according to Professor Owen, ties that are found among our domestic barn-yard fowls — the more especially since there seems to be little if any doubt that all of them are descended from a single original stock.* And yet how great the difference among the numerous breeds. Darwin enumerates thirteen distinct breeds, and a number of sub-breeds, among which we have the “ diminutive elegant Bantam, the heavy Cochin (Shanghai), with its many peculiarities, and the Polish fowl, with its great top-knot and protuberant skull,” the Dorking, with an additional toe, etc. There are rumpless fowls and tailless fowls; single-crested and double-crested, and those without crests; frizzled fowls, and silk fowls, and sooty fowls; creepers, or jumpers, with legs so short " that they move by jumping rather than by walking " (Darwin); and those with legs so long that they can feed from the top of a barrel ; and with plumage of all varieties of colors - black, white, yellow, mottled, mixed, etc., etc. The time and place of the origin of some of these breeds are well known, and the single origin of the whole not doubted, or scarcely so, by naturalists generally. The analogical argument from the great varieties among domestic fowls is well nigh conclusive in favor of the single origin of all the varieties of mankind ; i. e., it completely sets aside the main argument for a plural origin, which is based on variety of color and some differences in physical structure among men.

are undoubtedly of one species) present far greater differences in . form and color, and in some parts of their habits and instincts,

than any that are observed in man.”-p. 667. .

* " Most naturalists, with the exception of Temminck, believe that all the breeds haye proceeded from a single species.” (Darwin, Variations, etc., vol. i. p. 280.) This author does not think that the evidence of the single origin of all the breeds of domestic fowls from a single original species is so conclusive as that for the single origin of the pigeon. But he seems to have little or no doubt of the single origin. That original stock was the Galla Bankiva..

7. PIGEONS. I will allude to only one more case of great variation among the lower animals for illustration — that of the domestic pigeon; and these illustrations are the more valuable because the evidence that all the domestic races have descended from one known source is far clearer than with any other anciently domestic animal,” ... and because “ from causes which we can partly understand, the amount of variation has been extraordinarily great." *

The original species, as Darwin thinks, is the wild rock pigeon (Columba livia). Some authors describe 150 kinds. – Darwin, Var., etc., i. 164.

“I have no doubt," says Darwin, “ that there exist considerably above 150 kinds, which breed true, and have been separately named. — Variations, etc., i. 165.

Detail is here unnecessary. It is sufficient merely to name a few of the varieties described by Darwin, and other authors — as the pouter, the carrier, the runt, the baró, the fantail, the African owl, the short-faced tumbler, the Indian frill back, the trumpeter, etc. The osteological variations are great; for examples of extremes in the form of the beak and skull, compare the short-faced

* Darwin, Variations, etc., vol. i. p. 163. A few lines after, Darwin says, “ Notwithstanding the clear evidence that all the breeds are the descendants of a single species, I could not persuade myself, until some years had passed, that the whole amount of difference between them had arisen since man first domesticated the wild rock pigeon.”

bumbler with the English carrier. The variations in the forms of the skull are far greater than are exhibited in the most dissimilar varieties of the human race.

The argument for the unity of the human race, based on analogy from the lower animals, is attempted to be set aside by the allegation that it is only among domestic animals that these variations take place. It is domestication that produces the change. Man is not a domestic animal; therefore the analogy fails.* Now, what are the facts in the case? Why, simply these : Man is a cosmopolite ; his constitution — mental and physical — is such that he can go everywhere, and live in every climate, and in the most diverse conditions. Under the influence of these various climatic conditions of heat and cold, of modes of living, etc., etc., changes take place, and he assumes the various physical types which exist. But he takes the .so-called domestic animals with him, which, in the various changed conditions, in the same manner become changed, and assume the various types which we see. This is all. The analogy is perfect. Writers seem to think that domestication is a power in itself to produce change of type. Whereas the simple truth is, the animals following man necessarily, in the same manner with him, come under the influence of the various climates, conditions, habits of living, etc., etc., and the result is change of type. The reason why wild animals generally preserve such a uniformity of type is because they have a comparatively

* Pouchet, Plurality of the Human Race, pp. 83, 84. And so with polygenists generally.

limited range. There are a few, however, as the wolf, . the bear, and some others, which have a wider range, and consequently exhibit greater varieties. The principle here stated, and the facts dependent upon it, have not, as I think, received a proper attention from naturalists.

L. Page 280.


DIODORUS, in his brief account of India, relates some traditions of the Indians in regard to the expedition of Dionusos to their country. The following extract is of particular importance, as showing that Mt. Meru was the traditional Ararat of the Mosaic narrative, it being kept in mind that Dionusos (the same as Bacchus of the Romans, and Osiris of the Egyptians) was the traditional Noah. Of this there is no room for a reasonable doubt. Diodorus (i. 13) says distinctly that Osiris means Dionusos, as do others; and the accounts that are given of this deity, as elsewhere stated, leave no room to doubt that he is Noah deified.

“And here it is proper to relate what the most learned among the Indians say respecting these things.

“They say that when the people still dwelt in villages, Dionu80s came from the west with a powerful army, passing through all India, there being no city that could resist his power; that on account of the great heat, his army began to perish with a pestilential disease; but he, as a skillful commander, withdrew his army from the plains to the mountainous regions. There, from

« PreviousContinue »