EVOLUTION 265 



ological effects of stock-crossing. As far as we know the genetics of stocks 

 and races, we need not, a priori, expect any biological maladjustment. 



This discussion has been. pretty much on the negative side — a sort of 

 "hit parade" of scientific uncertainty with respect to race biology: we 

 are not agreed what a race is, we are not sure when and how races arose; 

 we do not know the precise hereditary mechanism in race; we are not sure 

 which physical traits in race are stable, which modifiable: we do not know 

 physiological and immunological features of race-groups; we can not 

 assess race in terms of superiority and inferiority. In very truth we know 

 little about the bio-genetical aspects of race. 



Despite the foregoing avowal of inadequate knowledge we venture to 

 present a definition of race that is sufficiently generalized to include the 

 variables of physical type, heredity, environment and habitat: 



A race is a sub-group of peoples possessing a definite combination of 

 physical characters, of genetic origin; this combination serves, in vary- 

 ing degree, to distinguish the sub-group from other sub-groups of mankind, 

 and the combination is transmitted in descent, providing all condi- 

 tions which originally gave rise to the definite combination remain rela- 

 tively unaltered; as a rule the sub-group inhabits, or did inhabit, a more 

 or less restricted geographical region. 



Certainly the physical anthropologist is not so dogmatic about the 

 clarity of distinction between racial groups as he once was. Indeed, there 

 are those who would deny the existence of human races, and who ad- 

 vocate dropping the term entirely. If the term race is purely genetic, and 

 if we do not know the genetic make-up (the genotype) of a presumed 

 race-group, then it follows that we can not define the group genetically, 

 and therefore it does not exist as a homogeneous genetic entity. This argu- 

 ment, as the present writer sees it, while biological on the face of it, stems 

 more from a cultural misinterpretation of the term ("racism"), wherein 

 race and nationalism are confused, than from considerations of presumedly 

 diagnostic morphological characters. 



There do exist certain groups which may be put into categories; i. e., 

 there are groups which tend to precipitate out when defined by a cer- 

 tain physical trait-complex. The trouble resides in the fact that the trait- 

 complex has been too rigidly defined, with too little allowance made for 

 variability. The physical anthropologist freely admits that his classifica- 

 tion has been based on the phenotype — the few external features used in 

 diagnosis. We are prepared to reclassify upon the basis of the genotype — 

 the basic genetic constituency. In both instances we will have groups called 

 races: in the first instance — the present-day method — groups are classified 

 by what they look hke physically; in the second instance — the emerging 

 bio-genetic method — groups will be classified by what they are genetically. 



The term race as we use it to-day is a recognition that group differences 



