258 READINGS IN BIOLOGICAL SCIENCE 



genes that are generalized, and that are also shared more or less equally 

 by one another. 



Actually, how have we in practice set up a racial classification? The first 

 method is that of somatological inspection: we look at a group and find 

 that, on the average, they are short, slender, dark-complexioned, long- 

 headed, wavy-haired, and their habitat is circum-Mediterranean; thus 

 H. s. caucasoideiis mediterraneiis comes into being (Italians, Spanish, 

 southern French, etc.). The second method is by biometric analysis. Here 

 a certain portion of an entire group — a random sample — is measured and 

 described precisely. If mathematical investigation shows that this sample 

 (and hence the group) is statistically homogeneous and significantly dif- 

 ferent from all other groups, then the group under consideration is termed 

 a race. "A biometrician's concept of race of man is derived primarily from 

 the statistical study of samples. . . . His methods are essentially descrip- 

 tive and they do not presuppose any particular theory of individual or 

 racial heredity." ^ The end result of both of these methods is the Vhonnne 

 moyen, or type, the hypothetical individual who represents the averages 

 of all the individuals in the group (e. g., John Bull, Alphonse, Hans, Uncle 

 Sam are caricatured types of an Englishman, a Frenchman, a German, an 

 American). 



In summary, our first "don't" recognizes that the groups we call human 

 races are, taxonomically, sub-sub-species. As in lower forms the differ- 

 ences which set these races apart — at such a taxonomic level — are not 

 clear-cut and precisely defined. As far as Man is concerned, we focus upon 

 a relatively few apparently stable characters and then accept them as hav- 

 ing a definitive and diagnostic value. In doing this, however, we do not 

 diverge radically from accepted zoological principles at sub-sub-specific 

 level for lower animal forms generally. At species level distinctions are 

 quite clear; below that they are dim in the haze of variability. 



The second "don't" is found in the fact that we are uncertain how stocks 

 and races arose, i, e., when in human evolution they appeared and the 

 mechanism involved in their emergence. We are pretty well satisfied that 

 Man, as a primitive hominid, probably arose some five million years ago, 

 more or less, as the result of a divergence from a generalized anthropoid 

 form which gave rise to Man and the Anthropoids as we to-day know 

 them. But that accounts for Alan as Man — how about the White Man? 

 The Yellow? The Black? Well, we are not really sure. There are sugges- 

 tive finds, but nothing more. The first White Man may possibly be seen 

 in Galley Hill man, resident in England some 400,000 years ago; the first 

 Yellow Man is suggested by Weidenreich to date to Sma?nhropiis, the 

 man of Peking, China, of about a million years ago; the first Black Man 

 may date to Rhodesian man in Africa, 100,000 (?) years ago — certainly 

 he was present in southern Europe at Grimaldi, some 25,000 years ago. We 



3 G. M. Morant, in Race and Culture, p. 24, 1934. Royal Anthropol. Inst., London. 



