MONOGENY versus POLYGENY. 303 
istics. This, as well as the complicated relations of the 
mixture of races, and the various forms of hybrids, is 
the great difficulty lying in the way of tracing the 
human pedigree in its individual branches, species, races, 
varieties, ete. 
In spite of these great and serious difficulties, we cannot 
here refrain from taking one more cursory glance at the 
ramification of the human pedigree, and at the same time 
considering, from the point of view of the theory of descent, 
the much discussed question of the monophyletic or poly- 
phyletic origin of the human race, and its species or races. 
As is well known, two great parties have for a long time 
been at war with each other upon this question; the 
monophylists (or monogenists) maintain the unity of origin 
and the blood relationship of all races of men. The poly- 
phylists (or polygenists), on the other hand, are of opinion 
that the different races of men are of independent origin. 
According to our previous genealogical investigations we 
cannot doubt that, at least in a wide sense, the monophy- 
letic opinion is the right one. For even supposing that the 
transmutation of Man-like Apes into Men had taken place 
several times, yet those Apes themselves would again be 
allied by the one pedigree common to the whole order of 
Apes. The question therefore would always be merely 
about a nearer or remoter degree of blood relationship. In 
a narrower sense, on the other hand, the polyphylist’s 
opinion would probably be right, inasmuch as the different 
primeval languages have developed quite independently of 
one another. Hence, if the origin of an articulate language 
is considered as the real and principal act of humanification, 
and the species of the human race are distinguished accord- 
