EXTERNAL DISTINCTIONS PREFERABLE 169 
and he is, therefore, led to enquire how far they 
have been used by others? and which of them is 
best calculated to aid his studies? Where two 
modes of investigation conduct us to the same re- 
sults, it cannot for a moment be questioned that the 
preference should be given to that which is most 
simple; for this preference not only abridges in- 
dividual labour, but tends to render science inviting 
_to others. To define disagreements, and to point out 
similitudes, is the chief business of the naturalist ; 
and if he can accomplish this, the world will be 
satisfied and convinced, in proportion as the means 
he has employed, or the arguments he has used, 
can be verified and understood by others. Suppose, 
for instance, that the physiologist, who wished to 
inform us on the different varieties of man, directed 
our attention—not to the external peculiarities of 
their features, which every one can see and com- 
prehend— but to the different modifications of their 
internal anatomy, which could only be understood 
by one reader in a hundred: our question would 
immediately be, Why have recourse to these complex 
characters, when others, apparent to the most illite- 
rate observer, lie before us? A European can be as 
accurately distinguished from an Ethiopian by his 
external form, as by the most refined specification 
of any anatomical differences that may exist between 
them; while, if there are no such internal differ- 
ences, we become persuaded that the variations of 
nature can be best understood, and can be more 
accurately defined, by the more simple and natural 
process of studying her external distinctions. 
(112.) A system in which it is professed to ar- 
