930 



SCIENCE. 



[N. S. Vol. XV. No. 389. 



that the same qualities and tendencies 

 which gave him this extensive range have 

 prevented complete isolation, except in 

 the presence of physical barriers. Poly- 

 genesis ascribes these unique powers to 

 several apes in spite of the fact that with 

 the exception of man, all existing species 

 of the order Primates are animals of very 

 limited distribution. 



The doctrine of polygenesis marks a nat- 

 ural reaction from that of a too narrow 

 monogenesis, but in its extreme exten- 

 sion attains an equal absurdity. Moreover, 

 the term itself is unfortunate in implying 

 many distinct centers or lines of descent 

 which would but multiply the difficulties. 

 The logical and biologically defensible an- 

 tithesis of monogenesis is not polygenesis 

 but eurygenesis, or the predication of a 

 wide and largely decentralized distribution 

 of primitive man or his precursors, if the 

 term be preferred. Strictly speaking, man 

 might be monogenetie and still originate 

 all over the world by the gradual ameliora- 

 tion of a cosmopolitan species; and poly- 

 genesis by requiring two or more separate 

 derivations or ameliorations, is on the bio- 

 logical plane an assumption inconsistent 

 with that of an evolution by convergence 

 and integration which would be retarded 

 rather that advanced by the implied isola- 

 tion. 



Exponents of both monogenesis and 

 polygenesis apparently neglect also the ob- 

 vious fact that man's origin and primary 

 distribution are zoological rather than 

 ethnological questions, since an indefi- 

 nitely great period of time must have 

 elapsed between the organic perfection of 

 man and the development of the races, lan- 

 guages, customs and arts studied by an- 

 thropologists. But even on zoological and 

 geological grounds the question of origin 

 is stiLl in the balance, and as competent an 

 anthropologist as Sir William Flower 

 franlily admits that 'it is quite as likely 



that the people of Asia may have been 

 derived from America as the reverse.'* 



Not even the fact that all of man 's quad- 

 rumanous relatives were confined to the 

 Old World is conclusive. Indeed, it is 

 strange that under static theories of evo- 

 lution it was not argued that man must 

 have originated in America, on the ground 

 that he would not have attained his human 

 characteristics while exposed to intermix- 

 ture with his more backward simian rela- 

 tives. And in further support of such a 

 view it might have been observed that the 

 curled hair which characterizes the peoples 

 deemed most primitive in the Old World 

 is apparently a specialization, the higher 

 apes having straight hair. Likewise the 

 small cerebral bulk of even the most ad- 

 vanced of the aborigines of America does 

 not indicate descent from larger brained 

 Old World stock. 



In accordance with the evidence of tra- 

 dition, history and general biology we may 

 ascribe the convergence and integration of 

 customs, languages and races to the inter- 

 communication which is at once a cause 

 and a result of human progress toward 

 civilization. No one race or nation has had 

 a monopoly of improvement and discovery 

 and those which continue to progress gen- 

 erally obtain more from others than they 

 originate themselves. Specialization and 

 isolation which resist change are as clearly 

 misfortunes to nations as to plants and 

 animals. Within historic times the physical 

 and intellectual powers of the race are not 

 known to have increased, but the synthesis 

 of skill and knowledge has continued with 

 accelerated rapidity. Modern qations 

 pride themselves on their adaptability, and 

 no longer emulate the changelessness of 

 the Medes and Persians and the Chinese. 



That the nations of the earth are of one 

 blood does not mean that they were ever of 



* Journ. Anihrop. Inst. Gt. Britain, 14: 391. 

 London, 1885. 



