462 DISCUSSION 



of the geneticist on this question will obviously be of value to the anthro- 

 pologist. In considering it one must remember constantly that individuals 

 and groups are different in nature and that they behave in different ways. 

 This may appear too obvious to be worthy of consideration, but a failure 

 to appreciate the distinction is in fact a fertile source of error. Mendelian 

 genetics has shown conclusively that the theory of blended inheritance is 

 incorrect as far as individuals are concerned. It has been repeatedly 

 inferred from this fact alone that a theory of blended inheritance relating 

 not to individuals but to the group characters of intercrossed groups must 

 also be incorrect. But this assumption is quite invalid, and the inference 

 regarding the group cannot be investigated so simply. I am still prepared 

 to defend the old-fashioned theory that, as far as quantitative skeletal 

 characters are concerned, the crossing of groups leads to blended inheritance, 

 i.e. to the blending of the average values of the characters for the parent 

 groups. A great deal of observational data may be brought forward to 

 support this theory, and it seems to me that no valid objections to it of a 

 theoretical nature have yet been advanced by geneticists. 



Prof. A. M. Carr- Saunders. 



Historical evidence is relevant to the problem of genetics and race, though 

 it can never be decisive and must be used with great caution. We can take 

 groups which exhibit fairly well marked physical differentiation, and ask 

 whether their accomplishments can be satisfactorily explained without 

 supposing that they are also otherwise differentiated. We can also take 

 groups exhibiting fairly definite cultural characteristics, and ask whether 

 there is any reason to suppose that they have peculiar genetic constitutions. 

 The problem is whether, after taking into account the known facts relating 

 to the influences which played upon groups, there remains anything in the 

 story of their fate, accomplishments and characteristics which appears to 

 call for some further explanation and therefore to indicate genetic differences 

 in the region of intellect, emotion, or temperament. The result of reflection 

 along these lines is that attention is arrested by the persistence of tempera- 

 mental traits which characterise certain groups, but the interpretation of 

 these observations is very doubtful. Again the evidence derived from the 

 formation of new nations in oversea countries within recent times can be 

 brought into the picture. About the origin of these new and distinct 

 groups we have fairly complete information, and we can ask again whether, 

 in order to understand what has happened, it is necessary to have recourse 

 to the hypothesis of genetic differences. 



Prof. R. Ruggles Gates, F.R.S. 



Geographical varieties are well recognised among plants and animals. 

 With regard to man, some writers have passed from the well-known fact 

 that most human types are of mixed origin, to the indefensible position that 

 human races do not exist. From a genetical point of view, if we apply the 

 same criteria of species to man as are applied to the higher mammals, it is 

 necessary to recognise the existence of several species of living man. Recent 

 critical studies of African monkeys show various genera containing a number 

 of species, each with several subspecies or geographical races. ' Homo 

 sapiens ' is an anthropological convention, surviving from the time when 

 inter sterility was regarded as an essential criterion of species. Recent 

 evidence indicates that the mongoloid, australoid, negroid and caucasoid 

 types of man have been evolving independently since the beginning of the 



