748 
THE PHARMACEUTICAL JOURNAL AND TRANSACTIONS. 
[March 18,1871. 
THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN SPECIES AND RACE. 
In the review of a work by M. Quatrefages, entitled, 
1 Charles Darwin et ses Precurseurs Frangais,’ which re¬ 
cently appeared in the Gardeners’ Chronicle , a resume is 
given of the arguments of that celebrated naturalist, 
from which we abstract the following particulars. 
As the result of an examination of the doctrine of 
Darwin, M. Quatrefages considers that it resolves itself 
into a simple and clear notion, which may be represented 
in the following formula:—All the actual and present 
animal and vegetable species descend by way of succes¬ 
sive transformations from three or four original types, 
and probably from one solitary primitive archetype. 
Thus explained, he thinks Darwinism has in it nothing- 
very new, and that the admirers of Darwin have not done 
justice to those who have preceded him in this path of 
speculation, such as De Maillet, Robinet, Buffon, Geof- 
froy and Isidore Saint-Hilaire, Bory de Saint Vincent, 
and M. Naudin. 
The “general exposition of Darwinism” which fol¬ 
lows is probably more in accord with the real views of 
Darwin, especially in reference to the doctrine of natural 
selection, than the writings of professed admirers and 
champions of the school. 
M. Quatrefages is at issue w r ith Mr. Darwin on the 
subject of the transmutation of species, whilst he believes 
in their variability. All Nature manifests correlation, 
and all the extinct species of animals range themselves 
side by side, or in the vicinity of species at present ex¬ 
isting. To find place for all the fossil animals yet dis¬ 
covered, it has not been necessary to create one single 
additional class. The extinct and the living species ap¬ 
pear as the integral parts of one system of creation. The 
embryonic structure of animals tends to the same con¬ 
clusion. The second part of the book deals with the 
nature of the proofs invoked. The author finds that in 
all the writers quoted personal conviction takes the place 
of logical argument. Modern science requires more than 
this, and only accepts as proofs well-defined facts, and 
such as have been subjected to vigorous criticism. M. 
Quatrefages contends that the notions of Darwinism are 
opposed to the observed and ascertained laws of creation, 
and to the facts brought to our view by Paleontology, 
and says that Lamarck, in setting out from an assump¬ 
tion of spontaneous generation has, at all events, a logical 
basis on which to rest his theory ; but Darwin, in refus¬ 
ing this doctrine, and in leaving out of sight the origin 
of his primordial being, is obliged to admit that some 
unknown cause has played the part of a creative power 
on this globe, and that only for once, during a limited 
time, and in only one manner. To produce for once an 
archetype, and to remain inoperative for ever after, is 
contrary to all human experience and belief. 
M. Quatrefages afterwards enters upon the questions 
of species and races of hybridation and cross-breeding 
( 'metissage ). He says the two first terms are often con¬ 
founded. He quotes Isidore Saint-Hilaire, who, after a 
learned examination of the opinions of the most eminent 
botanists and geologists, says:—“ Such is species and 
such is race, not only for the schools into which na¬ 
turalists are divided, but for all. The gravity of their 
differences respecting the origin and the anterior phases 
of the existence of species does not hinder them from 
proceeding to the distinction and determination of spe¬ 
cies and race in the same way. So long as the question 
is only concerning the actual state of organized beings, 
all naturalists think the same, or at least act as if they 
thought the same.” 
M. Quatrefages thinks these words exactly define the 
question. “ they teach us that schools exist only when 
w r e take a position outside of time and place accessible to 
observation, and that they are effaced as soon as we enter 
on reality. In the presence of what is, it is no longer 
possible to argue about what might be.” Our author 
cites the definitions of between twenty and thirty lead¬ 
ing naturalists, from the times of Ray to the present,, 
and finds that “ when they would define species they 
have all been constrained to include, in their formulas 
the two ideas of resemblance and of descent.” Vogt 
fix-st comprehended in his definition of species the notion 
of the phenomenon of geneagencsis ; more recent works, 
and especially those of Darwin, have shown the great 
importance of polymorphism. 
This is illustrated by the changes undergone in a cycle 
of generations of a Medusa , through the whole of which 
it remains fundamentally the same. Similar facts lead¬ 
ing to the same result have been traced out in the 
vegetable kingdom. 
“The species,” then, according to M. Quatrefages, “is 
the collective amount of individuals more or less resem¬ 
bling each other, which are descended, or can be looked 
upon as descended, from one primitive pair by an unin¬ 
terrupted and natural succession of families. 
“ The variety is an individual, or a collection of indi¬ 
viduals, belonging to the same sexual generation, which 
is distinguished from other representatives of the same 
species by one or more exceptional characteristics. 
“ The race is the totality of individuals belonging to a 
single species having received, and transmitting by way 
of generation, the characters of a primitive variety. 
“ Thus the species is the point of departure. In the- 
midst of the individuals which compose the species ap¬ 
pears the variety, and when the characters of the variety 
become hereditary they form a race. These are the re¬ 
lations which for all naturalists reign between these 
three terms, and which it is necessary to have constantly 
before the mind in the study of the questions which 
occupy us.” 
Hence it follows that the notion of resemblance, which 
is very much attenuated in the species, becomes of abso¬ 
lute importance in the race. 
The union of individuals of different species is very 
rarely productive. It is quite otherwise with the union 
of individuals of the same species but of different 
races. 
M. Quatrefages considers both Lamarck and Darwin 
confound the ideas of species and of race. He says that 
Darwin, in order to sustain his theory, should have 
proved that crossing between races is not always pos¬ 
sible ; and that crossing between species can give rise to^ 
hybrid races. This he is so far from being able to do, 
that his works are a storehouse of observations tending 
to prove the direct contrary. 
The power which man possesses of creating and modi¬ 
fying races both in the animal and vegetable -world, is 
very great. Beginning with, the egg, he can, by the 
simple application of heat in different ways, evolve ab¬ 
normal productions, and by altering the surrounding cir¬ 
cumstances of life, and by carefully crossing only with 
those possessing like peculiarities, he can produce races 
so unlike the species that they would certainly be set 
down, at first sight, as altogether different species. Thus, 
fi’om one species of pigeon (as Mr. Darwin believes) he 
has succeeded in raising 150 races, but they are all, 
nevei'theless, one species, and propagate freely among, 
themselves. The dog, also, in like manner, has vailed, 
under his hand into 180 races, and it is familiar to eveiy 
one how wonderful the triumph of human art has been, 
in the vegetable kingdom. But man has never yet suc¬ 
ceeded in producing one species, self-maintaining, cap¬ 
able of continued fertility within itself, and unfruitful in 
crossing with other species. 
The advocates of Darwinism say that, if man can do 
so much, Nature, having all time at her disposal, can do 
much more, and M. Quatrefages admits that the argu- 
nxent is plausible, but denies its correctness. He shows 
that man can do many things which Nature cannot, and 
that in the natural state of things we do not find such 
phenomena as occur under the hand of man. In fact, if 
thei'e is anything which must strike an observer in the 
organized world it is the order and the constancy which- 
