no SIR WILLIAM FLOWER chap. 



craniologically the Tasmanian has many strong afifinities to the 

 AustraHan, such as to make it quite probable that the kinship 

 is not distant. As regards woolly hair, I confess I have no 

 belief in its even approaching a specific character. 



But indeed, as regards the specific unity of the human race, 

 tested by all zoological arguments universally admitted as appli- 

 cable to other animals, the case seems to me so strong that the 

 Polygenists have not a leg to stand upon. 



You mention the native "dingo" or Australian dog. Can 

 you tell me whether anything is known of its origin ? There is 

 no native dog in Australia ; that is to say, no non-marsupial 

 mammal in the native fauna of Australia, Man must have 

 brought the " dingo " with him, as he naturally would do. I 

 don't know whether the Tasmanian had any dog ? 



I am very sorry to hear that you are still so unwell. I hope 

 I don't give you too much trouble in asking you these questions. 



Professor Flower to the Duke of Argyll 



39 Lincoln's Inn Fields, W.C, 

 October 29, 1878. 



I think that there can be no doubt about the native dog or 

 dingo having been introduced by man into Australia, although 

 there is no direct evidence upon the point. Nearly all the 

 islanders of the South Seas, including the New Zealanders, had 

 their domestic dogs when first discovered by Europeans ; but 

 the Tasmanians had none. This seems proof of their long and 

 complete isolation from the rest of mankind, especially as there 

 was nothing, either in the climate or nature of the people, 

 antagonistic to dogs ; for when these animals were introduced 

 by the English settlers they soon multiplied, and nearly all the 

 wild natives, already before their extinction, had become possessed 

 of and made companions of them. 



The strongest, and in my mind fatal, objection to the poly- 

 genist view is that none of its advocates have been able to agree 

 upon the number of species into which man should be divided. 

 Some say two^ some three^ some twelve^ some sixteen^ some 

 sixty. Surely if the divisions were so trenchant as they assert. 



