THE ADVENT UF MAN IN AMEKICA. ol5 



tiueuts is vciy small. The IJciudeor and the Caribou uie geuerally 

 regarded as only xarieties of one species. Brandt, with some reserva- 

 tions, says the sanie<)f the Bisou and the Anroch, tlie Argali (Asiatic 

 wild slieex)), ^^^^^ ^^^^ Bighorn (Eocky ^Mountain sheep). But none of 

 these species are found in the warm regions of these two hemispheres, 

 nor in all Oceaniea. The Garnivora, offer similar facts to the jireced- 

 ing: but when we come to the Clnuroptera and the <^)uadrumana we do 

 not find a single species common to both continents, or to the rest of 

 the world. 



Thus among- all organized beings, whether ])lant or animal, there is 

 not a cosmopolitan after the manner of man. JSTow it is evident that 

 the area of the actual habitat of any animal or vegetable species in- 

 cludes the center where that species first appeared. Ijy virtue of the 

 law of expansion the center should likewise be less in extent than the 

 occupied area. 'No i^laut and no animal, therefore, originated in all the 

 regions of the globe. To suppose that in the beginning man a])peared 

 everywhere that we now see him would l)e to make an exception of 

 him which wouhl be unicjue. The hypothesis therefore can not be ac- 

 cepted, and every monogeuist will reject the supposition of the initial 

 cosmopolitism of the human species as a false conclusion. 



The Polygenists must accept the same conclusion unless they refuse 

 to apply to man the laws of geography, botany, and zoiilogy that govern 

 all other beings. In fact, to whatever extent they have multi])lied the 

 species of man, whether they assume that there are two with Virey, 

 fifteen witli I>er,\' Saint-Vincent, oi' an undetermined but considerable 

 number with (lliddon, they have always united them into a single 

 genus; and they could not do otherwise. Now a human genus can be 

 no more cosmopolitan than a liuman species. t>peaking of plants, 

 Can(h)lle says, '• Tlie same causes have born(i on general and on sj>ecies," 

 and this is as true of an imals as of phints. 



Restricting ourselves to mammals, among the cetaceans, Murray 

 thinks that the genera of the rorcpial and the <lol])hin aic represented 

 in all the seas. Van Bene(h'n and (rervais dispute tliis. We will how- 

 ever admit it; it does not all weaken our conclusion, for, excepting the 

 cetaceans, there can be no (piestion of generic cosmopolitism. Of the 

 ruminants, the genera of tlie deer, the ox, etc.; of the carnivora, the 

 cat, bear, etc., ha^'(} representativ<'s in both worlds, but none in Aus- 

 tralia or Polynesia. As W(^ examine the higlier gi'ouj)s, we see the 

 number of these genera of large iuvn diminishing, until iinally not a 

 single genus of monkey is known to be common to the Old and tlie 

 New Continent; and the !Simian type itself is wanting in the greater 

 part of both worlds and Oceania. 



Thus, whether we regard animals by s])ecies or by genera, tlie area 

 of their habitat becomes mitre restricted as the animals are higher in 

 the zoologic scale. It is tlu' same with the vegetable kingdom. Can- 

 dollesays: "-The mean area of species is as much smaller as the class 



