MAN IN NATURE. 449 



straightening of the trunk in arboreal life — a straightening which 

 in no way implies a vertical position of the lower limbs — there is 

 nothing left particularly to the credit of the anthropoids. The 

 other distinctive characteristics of man and the anthropoids are 

 secondary, but lead to the same conclusions. Hence the two 

 groups should be separated in classification, and the anthropoids 

 continue monkeys. 



Employing Dalley's formula, we should say, but in an inverse 

 sense, that the anthropoids differ from monkeys infinitely less 

 than they differ from men. We need not even specify from what 

 monkeys, whether pithecans or cebeans, for it is sometimes mem- 

 bers of one, sometimes members of the other family, that are 

 more removed from man. In the general shape of the skull, in a 

 certain adaptation to the erect attitude of the head, in the devel- 

 opment of the hemispheres above the cerebellum, and in still 

 other characters, some of the cebeans are further advanced than 

 the pithecans and the anthropoids. In short, taking the interval 

 between the cebeans (arctopithecans excepted) and the pithecans 

 as one, that between the pithecans and the anthropoids would be 

 one, and that between the anthropoids alone or the cebeans, pithe- 

 cans, and anthropoids together and man would be three. 



Reasoning according to the monophyletic hypothesis, we sup- 

 pose that man is derived from a single stock. But the possibility 

 is suggested of his having had a multiple origin from different 

 stocks, and possibly at different epochs. To determine this point, 

 we must learn what the comparative study of races teaches us 

 concerning the unity of the human species in the present and the 

 past, from the lessons afforded by the actual remains of the races 

 that have been produced by incessant minglings and changes dur- 

 ing a succession of ages that defy all chronology. 



We have shown that there are, properly speaking, no races 

 within mankind such as we find among animals — that is, constant 

 varieties, perpetuating their likes in a certain manner. There are 

 only historical or philological elements of peoples to which we 

 attribute, whether rightly or wrongly, a certain number of com- 

 mon physical characteristics. In any other sense the races of 

 anthropology are simply products of our minds, suppositions of 

 substantial affiliations of unmixed blood, working hypotheses. 

 There are no persons corresponding with the types we assume. 



These types themselves are not tangible realities, but group- 

 ings of characteristics which we suppose to have been continuing 

 for an indefinite time through the events of history and prehis- 

 tory which, without destroying the characteristics, have not 

 ceased to scatter them and to arrange them anew in different com- 

 binations. As Lamarck has said, types are products of art ; we 

 pick them out as we can in existing populations. From particu- 



VOL. XXII. — 30 



