A more important. question is, what do classifications classify—species or varieties? Prichard held that mankind sprung from one stock, and constituted one'species. ENkt ing diversities in form and physique in races he accounted for by the influence of food, climate, and other circumstances operating through a long series of years. Mr. Darwin's recent work on Animals (Mid Plants under Domestication powerfully corroborates this view, for it demonstrates that within the limits of one admitted species of animal there may be produced, by the operation merely of artificial selection and hereditary transmission of peculiarities, diversities infinitely greater than those existing between the highest and lowest races of mankind. Then, again, the highest and lowest human races interbreed, and their offspring is fertile, which would hardly be the case if the parents were of differ ent species. Some have held that the difficulties of migration from an original center of creation were too great to be compatible with the wide geographical distribution of mankind. Yet even the South Sea islanders—and in their case the difficulties alluded to must have been greater than in most others—may have come to their present abodes by migration; for Japanese mariners have sometimes by stress of weather been driven from their course, and cast on the shores of islands in the South Seas. This doctrine of monogeny, or original unity of the human race, is supported by Dr. Latham with argu ments drawn from philology. Dr. Latham, taking it as a matter of fact that all the languages of mankind have had a common origin, argues from it in favor of an original unity of race. This common origin of languages, however, is a thing by no means proved. "The idea of an original language of the whole human race," says Dr. Waitz (Introduct. Antliropologie Naturvolker), " is by science now regarded as a chimera." Admitting that Klaproth, Furst, and Delitzsch have taken great pains to establish an affinity between the Sanscrit and the Hebrew, M. Renan and other excellent authorities regard the attempt as unsuccessful, and, even were it otherwise, "the Chinese," says a late writer (Farrar, Essay on the Origin of Language)," must always remain a stumbling block in the way of all theories respecting a primitive language. Radical as is the dis similarity between Aryan and Semitic languages, and wide as is the abyss between their grammatical systems, yet they almost appear like sisters when compared with the Chinese, which has nothing like the organic principle of grammar at all. Indeed, so wide is the difference between Chinese and Sanscrit, that the richness of human intel ligence in the formation of language receives no more striking illustration than the fact, that these languages have absolutely nothing in common except the end at which they aim. This end is in both cases the expression of thought, and it is attained as well in Chinese as in the grammatical languages, although the means are wholly different." Having thus made the reader in some degree acquainted with the views of Drs. Prichard and Latham on the subject of E., we now proceed to inform him of the totally different views and conclusions of the American school of ethnology. This school was founded by the late Dr. Morton of Philadelphia, an erudite and active man of science, who labored for many years in forming a collection of human crania of all nations, and of ancient as well as modern ages, with the design of still further carrying out Blumen bach's researches into the varieties of mankind by a comparison of crania, according to the method he had proposed. This collection of crania was begun in 1830, and at the time of Morton's death in 1851, amounted to the large number of 918 human crania, to which were afterwards added 51; and it, besides, included 278 crania of mammals, 271 of birds, and 88 of reptiles—in all 1606 skulls, being the largest collection of the kind ever formed, and which, fortunately for the purposes of science, is now deposited in the museum of the academy of natural sciences at Philadelphia: Simultaneously with this accumulation of crania, Dr. Morton carried on his researches in E., not, however, in the restricted sense in which he began, following Blumenbach's classification, but availing himself of the latest discoveries of Prichard, and the other English and continental writers. One of the results of his labors was the publication, in 1839, of a handsome work, entitled Crania Americana, which was followed in 1844 by the Crania 2Egyptiaca, in the collection of which he had been much aided by Mr. G. R. Gliddon. "In this work," says his biographer, Dr. Patterson, " Morton found himself compelled to differ in opinion from the majority of scholars, in regard to certain points of primary impor tance." The great question of the unity or diversity of mankind in their origin was one that early forced itself upon his attention, and the conclusion at which he arrived, after much patient investigation, was in favor of the latter view. He was slow to publish any opinion on the subject, probably reserving it for a work upon which he was engaged, to be entitled the Elements of Ethnology. His opinion, however, was well known to his friends. In a note to a paper in Silliman's Jouilnal for 1847, lie says: " I may here observe that whenever I have ventured an opinion on this question, it has been in favor of the doctrine of primeval diversities among men; an original adaptation of the several races to those varied circumstances of climate and locality which, while congenial to the one, are destructive to the other; and subsequent investigations have confirmed me in these views." In a latter to Dr. Nott, dated Jan., 1850, he lays down the following
proposition: " That our species had its origin, not in one, hut in several or in many creations, and that these diverging from their primitive centers, met and amalgamated in the progress of time, and have thus given rise to those intermediate links of organiz ation which now connect the extremes together. Here is the truth divested of mystery; a system that explains the otherwise unintelligible phenomena so remarkably stamped on the races of men." His latest- utterance upon the subject is contained in a letter written to Mr. G. R. Gliddon, in April, 1851, only a fortnight before the writer's decease, which concludes as follows: "The doctrine of the original diversity of man kind unfolds itself to me more and more with the distinctness of revelation." His views upon this and other points of dispute among ethnologists •have been since embodied in a remarkable work, entitled Types of Mankind; or, Ethnological Researches based upon the Ancient Monuments, Paintings, Sculptures, and Crania of Race, and upon their Natural, Geographical, Philological, and Biblical History: illustrated by selec tions from the inedited papers of S. G. Morton, M.D., and by additional contributions from Prof. L. Agassiz, W. Usher, M.D., and Prof. H. S. Patterson. By J. C. Nott, M.D., and G. H. Gliddon (Philadelphia, 1854). In this composite work, perhaps the most remark able feature is the paper contributed by the celebrated' naturalist, Prof. Agassiz, in support of Dr. Morton's theory as to the original diversity of the human races.
The paper by Agassiz is entitled, Sketch of the _Natural Provinces of the Animal World, and their Relation to the Different Types of Man. It was drawn up by the writer from a conviction that much might be gained in the study of ethnography by observing the natural relations between the different races of man and the plants and animals inhabiting the same regions. The sketch given by him is intended to show, that "the boundaries within which the different natural combinations of animals are known to be circum scribed upon the surface of our earth coincide with the natural range of distinct types of man. Such natural combinations of animals circumscribed within definite boundaries are called Faunce, whatever be their home—land, sea, or water." There are eight regions of the earth, according to Agassiz, each containing its own faunae, and its own peculiar type of man; and his main conclusion from a consideration of these several faunw is as follows: " That the diversity among animals is a fact determined by the will of the Cre ator, and their geographical distribution part of the general plan which unites all organ ized beings into one great organic conception; whence it follows that what are called human races, down to their specialization as nations, are distinct primordial forms of the type of man." Messrs. Nott and Gliddon, in their work quoted, appeal triumphantly to this theory of Agassiz in support of their view as to the primitive diversity of the races of mankind; and in a subsequent work, Indigenous Races of the Earth (Philadelphia, 1857), have inserted a further communication from the writer, in which, while he reit erates his formerly expressed opinion, that the races of man, so far as concerns their geographical distribution, are subject to the same circumscription as the other members of the animal kingdom, he observes: "Even if this fact stood isolated, it would show how intimately the plan of the animal creation is linked with that of mankind. But this is not all. There are other features, occurring among animals, which require the most careful consideration, inasmuch as they bear precisely upon the question at issue, whether mankind originated from one stock or from several stocks, or by nations. These features, well known to every zoologist, have led to as conflicting views respecting the unity or plurality of certain types of animals as are prevailing respecting the unity or plurality of the origin of the human races. The controversy which has been carried on among zoologists upon this point, shows that the difficulties respecting the races of men are not peculiar to the question of man, but involve the investigation of the whole ani mal kingdom—though, strange as it may appear, they have always been considered without the least reference to one another." This theory of Agassiz, it must be stated, is very generally controverted, as the opinions generally of Dr. Morton and the American school of E., partly on but chiefly on scientific grounds. Indeed, from the conflict of opinions as to the origin of the human race, if the solution of this question were the sole object of anthropology, the science might be said to be in a very unsatisfactory state. But this is not the case.' The question at issue is one that may well be left in abeyance for the present. Without it, the field of inquiry is sufficiently wide, and is well cultivated by skilled laborers, who continually bring the product of their researches in physiology, geography, archae ology, and comparative philology to enrich and fructify the newly turned-up soil.
Subjoined is a tabular view of the different races of mankind, according to the use ful, if not absolutely perfect classification of Dr. Latham: