162 CRITIQUES AND ADDRESSES. [vii. 



lias ever pretended to show in what way they can be 

 effected directly by climate. 



It is here, in fact, that the strength of the Polygenists, 

 or those who maintain that men primitively arose, not 

 from one, but from many stocks, lies. Show us, they 

 say to the Monogenists, a single case in which the cha- 

 racters of a human stock have been essentially modi- 

 fied without its being demonstrable, or, at least, highly 

 probable, that there has been intermixture of blood 

 with some foreign stock. Bring forward any instance 

 in which a part of the world, formerly inhabited by one 

 stock, is now the dwelling-place of another, and we 

 will prove the change to be the result of migration, 

 or of intermixture, and not of modification of character 

 by climatic influences. Finally, prove to us that the 

 evidence in favour of the specific distinctness of many 

 animals, admitted to be distinct species by all zoologists, 

 is a whit better than that upon which we maintain the 

 specific distinctness of men. 



If presenting unanswerable objections to your adver- 

 sary were the same thing as proving your own case, the 

 Polygenists would be in a fair way towards victory ; but, 

 unfortunately, as I have already observed, they have 

 as yet completely failed to adduce satisfactory positive 

 proof of the specific diversity of mankind. Like the 

 Monogenists, the Polygenists are of several sects ; some 

 imagine that their assumed species of mankind were 

 created where we find them the African in Africa, and 

 the Australian in Australia, along with the other animals 

 of their distributional province ; others conceive that each 

 species of man has resulted from the modification of some 

 antecedent species of ape the American from the broad- 

 nosed Simians of the New World, the African from 

 the Troglodytic stock, the Mongolian from the Orangs. 



The first hypothesis is hardly likely to win much 



