Ceap. YIL] THE RACES OF MAN. 209 



and are separated from each other only by a narrow space 

 of sea. 



We will first consider the arguments which may be 

 advanced in favor of classing the races of man as distinct 

 species, and then those on the other side. If a naturalist, 

 who had never before seen such beings, were to compare 

 a Xegro, Hottentot, Australian, or Mongolian, he would 

 at once perceive that they differed in a multitude of 

 characters, some of slight and some of considerable im- 

 portance. On inquiry he would find that they were adapted 

 to live under widely-different climates, and that they dif- 

 fered somewhat in bodily constitution and mental dispo- 

 sition. If he were then told that hundreds of similar 

 specimens could be brought from the same countries, he 

 would assuredly declare that they were as good species as 

 many to which he had been in the habit of affixing specific 

 names. This conclusion would be greatly strengthened as 

 soon as he had ascertained that these forms had all re- 

 tained the same character for many centuries; and that 

 negroes, apparently identical with existing negroes, had 

 lived at least 4,000 years ago. 5 He would also hear from 



5 "With respect to the figures of the famous Egyptian caves of Abou- 

 Shribel, M. Pouchet says (' The Plurality of the Human Races,' English 

 translat. 1864, p. 50), that he was far from finding recognizable repre- 

 sentations of the dozen or more nations which some authors believe that 

 they can recognize. Even some of the most strongly-marked races can- 

 not be identified with that degree of unanimity which might have been 

 expected from what has been written on the subject. Thus Messrs. Xott 

 and Gliddon (' Types of Mankind,' p. 148) state that Rameses II., or the 

 Great, has features superbly European ; whereas Knox, another firm be- 

 liever in the specific distinction of the races of man (' Races of Man,' 

 1850, p. 201), speaking of young Memnon (the same person with Rameses 

 II., as I am informed by Mr. Birch) insists in the strongest manner that 

 he is identical in character with the Jews of Antwerp. Again, while 

 looking in the British Museum with two competent judges, officers of the 

 establishment, at the statue of Amunoph III., we agreed that he had a 



10 



