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- 



