desultory manner. Lecture II. is characterized by the same infirmities as the first, though in some respects it is more ably elaborated and contains some interesting facts. As we have already trespassed inordinately, we shall briefly consider the remaining subjects in the order presented by the lecturer, merely to show the defects of his argumentation, without examining every objectionable passage that may occur. The first topic is the "Physical Differences" of the Caucasian and Negro. We must now beg the reader to refer back to what we have said on the discrimination of species. If there were two or three races of men only, separated from each other by dissimilar and permanent characteristics, the argument for their distinct origin would be much more available. But since there is a regular and imperceptible gradation from the pure white, and the regular features of the Caucasian, to the jet black and the abnormal contour of the Ethiopian by transitions that defy all definition, we can have nothing in physical characters upon which to found a certain distinction of species. This fact, with the parallel case of well known and remarkable varieties of species in the lower orders of animals and among vegetables, has so puzzled some Naturalists, that they have adopted the theory of there being no such thing as species in nature, but that all the varieties are only developments from some primitive type. Dr. N. has all along kept out of sight the intervening forms, and held up to our view in ugly contrast, the European and Ethiopian types, by which process his argument acquires a speciousness and force that do not belong to it. This "grave question" is not to be settled by remarking only the extreme physical differences, but by giving due importance also to the remarkable resemblances that occur between the several races. These enter equally into the elements of the problem, and it is neither philosophical nor just to leave them out. In a note (p. 24.) our author has barely alluded to the variation and approxima tion of the several races, but as if it were a matter of no moment to the question, as if it were such a far outlying fact as to have no intimate affinity with the subject. He allows the fact, but says, "when you compare extremes the argument fails." Now it is because these extremes are connected by a complete and regular series of intermediate forms, that his argument fails entirely. Suppose he should adopt the same line of argument in regard to the dog, sheep, ox, etc., will Naturalists feel bound to allow specific difference on account of the extremes? Will they consent to be told, that their argument for the unity of the species fails for such a reason? If the varieties of the human race are distinct species, let our author define them, and we pledge ourselves to furnish the links, which shall unite them by characters derived from his own diagnoses, if he will give them correctly. All attempts have thus far failed, and ever must fail from the necessities of the case. They cannot even be defined as varieties, in such a way, as to include all and only the individuals in a given race. The best authorities on this subject, are Blumenbach, Lawrence, Cuvier and Pritchard. The first two maintain five primary divisions of mankind; the last two, three divisions. All have met with difficulties in the attempt to arrange a complete and certain scheme in the fact, that the normal types are connected closely with one another by abundant forms, which blend the whole in one. But Dr. Nott has imposed an easy task upon himself, which no Naturalist ever thought of, in noticing only the extremes, and omitting all consideration of the varying forms which constitute the essential difficulties of the question. These difficulties are well illustrated in the different modes of classification; some assuming one species, some three, some five, and even fifteen; others three or more varieties, and all characterized by different arrangements of the tribes of the human family, and by very different essential characters; so that one system arises only to be rejected by the next as incomplete and unsatisfactory. Cuvier, whose judgment in this matter, was probably equal to that of any writer who has yet appeared, divides the human race into three varieties. He classes the Malay as only the subdivision of a variety. Notwithstanding his profound knowledge of Zoology, and of Anatomy human and comparative, he could find no sufficient characters for specific distinction between the Caucasian and Negro, either in color, form, or anatomical differences. Dr. Nott, however, supposes that he discovers a sufficient ground of specific distinction in the smaller head of the Negro, narrower forehead, projecting upper jaw, the teeth pointing "obliquely forward," thicker and denser bones of the head, longer arm and "compressed chest;" in "the bones and muscles of the pelvis, the flat long thighs, and the for ward bend of the knee." "The shape of the shin bone, calf, foot and heel, are familiar to you all." (pp. 23, 24.) This enumeration is founded on peculiarities which are far from being universal, and which are found more or less in the other races, and therefore are not reliable characters for specific distinction. We think we are not mistaken in asserting, that each of them is found in the white race. They are often very slight, and some of them frequently not found at all in various tribes of Negroes. With the exception of the character derived from the teeth,* he has mentioned no important differential circumstance, and in respect to these organs, he has made the singular mistake of speaking of them in the aggregate, when he should have limited his remark to the incisors. These only project somewhat in the Negroes of western Africa. In those of Mozambique they are vertical. In the Hottentots they are oblique and bent. Here are three forms of incisive teeth in the Negro. What scope is there then for specific distinction, when the same race varies so much in the most essential character he has mentioned. The Egyptian mummies, are said to have the canine teeth undistinguishable from the molars.† The Esquimaux and Greenlanders are more or less subject to the same peculiarity; but are they not Mongolians? We have seen two white men whose teeth were all of the molar form; and were they not Caucasians? It is said, there are some people of Africa who are defective in two canine teeth, one in the upper, and one in the lower jaw. The same has been said of a tribe in Peru. But if any one would fully satisfy himself of the insufficiency of this character in the Negro, he has only to examine a few sets of teeth in the unmixed Negroes around him, and see if the incisors project enough to hang a doubt upon. We suspect it will be found a general rule in all races, that the incisive teeth vary very little from a line with the plane of the face. The Negro, therefore, or any other, with a projecting upper jaw, will have * On referring to Morton we find him saying, that their "teeth differ in nothing from those of the old Caucasian nations." If occasional instances, however, of the peculiarity mentioned in the text are found among them, our argument is not at all impaired. + In allowing importance to character derived from the teeth, we merely intend to intimate the value of the dental formulæ in Zoology. It will be seen by our subsequent remarks, that we did not intend to attach any importance to the differences observable in the teeth of mankind. If they were of the right kind they could not be available, because neither general nor uniform. apparently projecting incisors, although they do not swerve from the plane of the face more than in those whose teeth are vertical. We have however, seen more projecting incisors in white individuals than we have seen in black. The other points of difference are as valueless as this of the teeth, and similar ones will readily occur to the reader in the varieties of domesticated animals. We shall not discuss them all therefore. We will however mention, that the Hindoos have the same disproportioned arm that is attributed, without its being any thing like a universal fact, to the Negro. As to the resemblance which "Anatomists have established between the Negro and the Ape," we can mention three times as many "points of resemblance" between the Caucasian and the Ourang Outang. We hardly know what Dr. N. would imply by this. Would he have us infer that there is only a specific difference between the Negro and Ape? If he acknowledges a generic difference, of what avail are these "points of resemblance"? Does he not know, that there are many such points which anatomists have established between man and the brute? The size of the head and brain are equally insufficient for specific character, as well as the thickness of the bones of the head. Ulloa says, that skulls of the Indians, taken from their burying grounds, are six to seven lines thick. Our author remarks,-"The head of the Negro is smaller by a tenth" than that of the Caucasian. (p. 23.) And,-"It is settled by Naturalists, that the brain of the Negro, when compared with the Caucasian, is smaller by a tenth, and is particularly defective in the anterior or intellectual lobes, and that the intellect is wanting in the same proportion;" (p. 33.) i. e. we suppose, the Negro is one tenth less intellectual than the Caucasian. The following extract from Dunglison, will require us to make some qualification of our author's statement, though as far as the argument is concerned, we are willing to concede the whole. "It has been the general belief, that the brain of the Negro is inferior to that of the white varieties of the species: but recent observations of M. Tiedemann lead him to the belief, that there is no perceptible difference, either in the average weight or average size of the brain in the two varieties, and that the nerves compared with the size of the brain, are not larger in the former than in the latter. In the external form of the brain of the Negro, a very slight difference only can be traced; but according to M. Tiedeman, there is absoVOL. VII.--NO. 14. 33 lutely no difference in its external structure, nor does the negro brain exhibit any greater resemblance to the Ourang Outang, than the brain of the European, excepting perhaps in the more symmetrica! dispositions of its convolutions. Tiedeman's observations were made, however, upon very few subjects, and his own facts do not bear out all his deductions. He admits, that the anterior part of the hemisphere was something narrower than is usually the case in Europeans.".. He "established the fact, that the average capacity of the Ethiopian skull is somewhat less than that of the European, and that a large size is considerably less common among them, than among other races of mankind." (Physiology. I. 293, 4. 4th edition.) Notwithstanding the "very few subjects" observed by Tiedemann, we have nevertheless the important conclusion to derive from his observations, that it cannot be predicated universally of the Ethiopian brain, that it is inferior in weight and size to that of the Ethiopian. Sommering estimates the encephelon of an adult, "at from 2 lbs. 3 oz. to 3 lbs. 34 oz.; Tiedemann at from 3 lbs. 3 oz. to 4 lbs. 11 oz. troy." "The average weight after the meninges have been stripped off, is, in the healthy adult male, according to Lelut, about 3 lbs. avoirdupois." Oliver says, "between 3 and 4 lbs." In a Lecture on the brain, which we heard from a physician in Boston, the average weight was given at 3 lbs. That of Spurzheim, he said, weighed 3 lbs. 7 oz., and was unusually large; that of Teller, who murdered a keeper in the Connecticut Penitentiary, 3 lbs., "but was unfortunately in the wrong place." Dr. Now what can be determined from this variety of estimates of the weight of the brain in the Caucasian race, varying from 2 lbs. 3 oz. to 4 lbs. 11 oz.; when, as we may infer from Tiedemann, that of the Ethiopian sometimes reaches above the average of the European, and we also have the Mongolian, American and Malay races, with their numerous varieties, intermediate between these two. Morton also assures us, that "the internal capacity" of the cranium "is nearly the same in the Hindoo and Peruvian."‡ It is readily granted the average size and weight are less in the Ethiopian than in European, but so long as cases are frequently found in the former race, which attain and overreach the average of the latter, we must conclude that the former are susceptible of change, and that their inferiority * Dunglison's Physiology. I. 292. + Physiology, p. 102. * Boston Journal of Natural History, vol. iv. 222. |