The great Aryan or Indo-European race, which extends itself from the mouth of the Ganges to the British islands and the northern extremities of Scandinavia, divides itself, according to Prichard, into two branches—viz., the parent stockin Asia, and the colo nies that it successively sent forth into Europe. The Asian branch comprises: 1. Thu dus; 2. Persians; 3. Afghans; 4. Baluchi and Brahui; 5. Kurds; 6. Armenians; and 7. Ossetines. The collective body of the European nations are now generally regarded as a series of colonies from Asia. The proof turns mainly on a comparison of languages; the ancient Sanscrit being regarded by the most competent judges as the parent not only of the Greek and Latin languages, but of the Teutonic, with its several ramifica tions of the Slavonic, Lettish, Lithuanian, and even Celtic. Dr. Prichard himself was the first to point out the affinity of the Celtic with the Sanscrit, Greek, Latin, and Teu tonic, in a memoir published by him in 1831, on the Eastern Origin of the Celtic Notions. Later philologers have confirmed the view taken by him, and he is perhaps correct also in the conclusion, that they were the first great immigration of the Aryans into Europe, who were afterwards conquered, and their numbers considerably reduced by fresh advancing colonies from the same parent hive. But there are other nations or tribes of Europe which no efforts of the philologists have succeeded in tracing to the Aryan stock; such are the Lapps, Finns, Tschudes, and Ugrians of the n., and the Euskaldunes, now principally represented by the Basques in the west. To these, Dr. Prichard has given the appellation of Allophylian (Gr. altos, another, and phule, tribe), thereby signi fying their independence of the Aryan stock. The progenitors of these tribes were probably the inhabitants of Europe, prior to the first Aryan immigration.
After these several races, Dr. Prichard treats of the native tribes of the austral seas and the great Southern ocean, and finally, of the native inhabitants of America. In every case, lie carefully describes the physical appearance or structure, the creographical habitat, history, and migrations (if any), the language, and the moral and psychical attributes of the nation or tribe immediately brought under notice. His information has generally been obtained from the best sources, and hence his works may be regarded as a storehouse of knowledge upon the subject of ethnology.
But both before and since Blumenbach and Prichard, there have been several classifi cations of the human race proposed, the simplest of which is perhaps that of Dr. Latham, into 1. Mongolidm; 2. Atlantidw; 3. Japetidre. This writer is properly regarded as the chief living exponent of the science of E. in this country. Following in the track of Prichard, and possessing, like him, a considerable acquaintance with physiology and history, he distances him altogether in the department of comparative philology. His contributions to the science of E., borrowed from this particular branch of study, are consequently of the highest value. But there is one important question, with respect to which the suffrages of the best philologers are rather with Prichard than with Latham —viz., the origin of the Aryan or Indo-European race. Prichard, as we have seen,
refers it to Asia, while Latham claims it for Europe.
Retzius's classification is based on the idea that the psychical individuality of a race is expressed by brain-development as indicated by the shape of the skull, He divides races into—I. Dolichocephalic, or long-skulled races, where the length of the skull is due to a lengthening of the posterior lobes of the brain, and II. Brachycephalic, or short, broad-skulled races, in whom the comparative shortness of these lobes causes them to be more developed in breadth. These are subdivided, according to the form of the face, into (1) orthognathous, or straight-faced peoples; e.g., Europeans; and (2) prog nathous. or races with projecting jaws, e.g., Negroes. This classification laid the foundation of ethnographic craniology. Zeune divides mankind into—(1) races with high skulls, e.g., Indo-Europeans; (2) races with broad skulls, e.g., Mongols and some Malay tribes; (3) races with long skulls, e.g., Negroes. Such. classifications err in grouping under the same divisions races between which it is otherwise impossible to establish any consanguinity. Passing over the wild speculative classifications of the modern German materialistic school, a specimen of which is that of Carl Vogt, who, assuming the ape origin of mankind to be an indubitable fact, describes three great divisions of the human race in correspondence with the three species of anthropomor phic apes found in Asia, Africa, and America, the only other very recent classification with pretensions to scientific reasonableness, is that of prof. Huxley, which is founded on the hair as a race-character. He describes two primary divisions—I. Ulotrichi, crisp or woolly-haired people, with skulls longer than they are broad (dolichocephalic), and with the skin-color varying from yellow to black. Negroes, Bushmen, and Malays are subdivisions of this great group. II. Leiotrichi, or smooth-haired people, subdivided into (1) the Australoid group, with dark eyes, wavy black hair, and eminently long, prognathous skulls, with well-develpped brow ridges;" (2) the Mongoloid group, e.g., Chinese, Tartars, Polynesians, and American aborigines; (3) The Xanthocroic group, fair, blue-eyed people, e.g., Sclays, Teutons, Scandinavians, and fair, Celtic speaking nations; (4) The Melanocroic group, or pale-skinned people, with dark hair and eyes, e.g. the Iberians, or "black Celts" of Europe, the inhabitants of the Mediterranean coast and of western Asia—a group resulting probably from intermixture of the Austra loid and Xanthocroic races. Under the Australoid group is classed such apparently unrelated races as the Australians, the Dekhan tribes in India, and the ancient Egyp tians; and curiously enough, col. Lane Fox has since shown that, from resemblances in the weapons, implements, etc., in use amongst these very races, prof. Huxley's appar ently startling views as to their affinity are not at all improbable.