NATURE OF VARIATIONS IN ANIMAL AND VEGETABLE RACES; APPLICATION TO
MAN.
I. The meaning of the question stated above is now intelligible.
We have to discover whether the human groups, which we know to
be distinguished by characters which are often very marked, are
fractions of a single unit, branches of the same tree, or so many
units of different value, so many trees of various nature.
Historical documents are absolutely incapable of solving this
problem. On the other hand, man being the subject of the problem, it
is evident that the solution must be sought elsewhere.
Where then must we turn in order to obtain a definite answer to this
question which concerns us so closely? Clearly to naturalists and
to naturalists alone. The Species and the Race have, for more than
two centuries, been the subject of their studies; they have amassed
observations, multiplied experiments. They have, in their studies,
been guided by a scientific spirit alone, and from being placed
beyond the reach of controversy, have preserved all their freedom of
judgment. The results thus acquired, deserve the greatest confidence,
and supply reliable data for the application of our anthropological
method.
Anyone really desirous of forming an opinion upon the unity or
multiplicity of the human species, should therefore discover what are
the facts and phenomena which characterise race and species in plants
and animals; then turn to man and compare the facts and phenomena
there presented with those which botanists and zoologists have
observed in the other kingdoms. If the facts and phenomena which
distinguish the human groups are those which, in other organised and
living beings differentiate _species_, he will then legitimately
infer the multiplicity of human species; if, however, these phenomena
and facts are characteristic of race in the two inferior kingdoms, he
must conclude in favour of specific unity.
It is the pursuance of this course which has convinced me of
monogenism, and I am certain the result will be the same with anyone
who will follow it.
II. The idea of species rests, as we have seen, upon the two distinct
ideas of _resemblance_ and _filiation_. Let us first turn our
attention to the former as being the greater stumbling-block of the
two. No one would hesitate to consider two individuals resembling
each other very closely as belonging to the same species; if,
however, they present somewhat marked differences, and the necessary
information is wanting, we hesitate to give our decision in the
negative. The mind readily accepts the latter conclusion when man is
the object of discussion. A continual, though unconscious study, has
endowed us with a perception which appreciates, in those around us,
the most delicate gradations in features, the colour of the skin,
and in the appearance of the hair. Now this delicacy of appreciation
has, in the present instance, a serious inconvenience. It inevitably
conduces to the exaggeration of differences existing between
different groups, and by this very means leads us to regard them as
so many species.
For this decision to have a real value, however, it should be shown
beforehand that the variations between one human group and another,
are greater than those which have been established between groups of
animals and plants, which are positively known to be only _races of
one species_.
Now this is not the case. However slight an attempt we may have made
to become acquainted with the nature and the extent of variations, we
shall very soon see that in animal and vegetable races they attain
limits, which are never overstepped, and but rarely attained, by the
differences between human groups.
III. I shall not insist at any length upon the morphological and
anatomical changes of plants. It will be sufficient to call to
mind how numerous and different are those varieties of vegetables,
flowers, fruit-trees, and ornamental shrubs, the number of which
is always on the increase. Amongst the latter, the variety, it is
true, very rarely attains to the condition of a _race_. Grafting,
propagation by layers, etc., make it possible to multiply them
rapidly and with certainty, as in the case of the thornless acacia,
and gardeners have always been in the habit of resorting to this
method. Nevertheless, even among fruit-trees, a few of these
varieties have become fixed, and can be reproduced by seed. The
plum, the peach, and the vine, may be quoted as examples. As to
annuals, garden vegetables especially, they can only be preserved and
multiplied by this method. Here we only find races, and it is well to
know how numerous and varied they are. The cabbage alone (_Brassica
oleracea_) numbers forty-seven principal races, each of which is
sub-divided into a number of secondary and tertiary races. Now it is
quite useless to insist upon the distance which separates the headed
cabbage, of which sauerkraut is made, from the turnip-cabbage, of
which the root is eaten, and from the cauliflower or the brocoli.
It is very evident that this cannot be due to the mere alteration of
primitive forms. The elements of the organism undergo modification,
and are differently associated and combined according to the race.
But these elements themselves often undergo most fundamental
disturbance. Certain acids are diminished or disappear, and are
replaced by sugar, a sweet taste and perfume, which develop and
characterise certain races of vegetables and fruits, and show
that the vital forces of these plants have been subjected to very
substantial modifications faithfully transmitted from generation to
generation.
The objection will perhaps be made that there is too little
resemblance between vegetable and animal organisms for the above
comparison of anatomical facts to be really useful. It is different
in physiological phenomena.
Vital activity in our cultivated plants sometimes presents very
remarkable differences in different races. In our several races of
corn, the rapidity of development varies from simple to triple. In
temperate climates barley requires five months to germinate, grow and
ripen. In Finland and Lapland it only takes two months to accomplish
the same phases of growth. And, finally, it is well known that in our
kitchen and fruit gardens we find races and varieties, some of which
are fast and some slow growers.
The energy of the reproductive organs often varies in a singular
manner in different races. We have, for instance, roses which
bloom two or three times a year, and strawberries which remain in
fruit nearly the whole year. There are oranges crammed with pips,
and others in which they are almost entirely wanting. Lastly, in
some bananas and in the currant-grape the seeds have completely
disappeared. We see at once that these latter products of human
industry only exist as _varieties_.
IV. In animals we meet with facts which correspond exactly with those
which we have just observed in plants. Further, we find that they
experience modifications connected with the manifestations of the
_something_ which we have called the _Animal Mind_.
The diversity of races in our domestic species is too well known to
make it necessary to insist upon this point. I shall only mention
that Darwin reckons 150 distinct races of pigeons, and declares that
he is not yet acquainted with all. These _races_ are, moreover,
sufficiently different to render a redivision into at least four
distinct _genera_ necessary, if they are considered as so many
_species_. Among mammals analogous facts are noticed, in the case of
the dog. At the Dog Show of 1863, the Society of Acclimatisation,
which had been very strict in its rules of admission and only
received perfectly pure types, collected no fewer than seventy races
of dogs. The greater number, however, belonged to Europe, and to
France and England in particular; almost all those of Asia, Africa,
and America, were absent from the collection, so that altogether we
are justified in assuming that there are at least as many races of
dogs as of pigeons. As to morphological differences we need only
mention bull-dogs and grey-hounds, beagles and Danish carriage dogs,
mastiffs and King Charles’s. It is scarcely necessary to remark
that these external differences suggest the idea of corresponding
modifications in the skeleton, in the proportion and form of the
muscles. Anatomical differences are indeed even greater. For example,
the skull of the water-spaniel is proportionately double the size of
that of the bull-dog.
There are among animals, as among plants, some races which develop
slowly, and others which increase in size rapidly. As in plants,
fecundity is diminished in some and increased in others. When they
are too perfect, that is to say, when they are too far removed
from their natural type, animal races, like vegetable races, only
propagate with great difficulty, or even not at all.
Our ordinary races of sheep only give birth once a year to a single
lamb; the “hong-ti” twice a year to two lambs each time. The wild
sow only litters once a year with but six or eight young, but when
domesticated litters twice a year with from ten to fifteen. Her
fecundity is therefore at least tripled. In the Indian pig, derived
from the “Aperea,” it is more than seven times as great.
In dogs, habits imposed by education, transmitted and strengthened
by heredity, finally assume the appearance of so many _natural
instincts_ by which races are as nicely characterised as by
physical peculiarities. This has been established beyond a doubt
by the experiments carried on by Knight during more than thirty
years. The mention of the beagle and the pointer will be sufficient
to recall the contrast which in many cases exists between these
_acquired instincts_. Considered as the relative development of the
intelligence, properly so called, the difference between races is
also very marked in many cases. From this point of view we need only
compare the greyhound and the spaniel.
V. If from _animals_ and _plants_ we pass to man, we shall find
in him, as in the two inferior kingdoms, groups distinguished by
anatomical, physiological and psychological differences. In most
cases the same organs and the same functions present analogous
modifications. What reason can be alleged for the idea that, if
_their nature_ is considered, these differences and modifications
have a greater signification in man, and that they characterise
_species_ and not _race?_ Clearly none; it would be reasoning against
the laws of analogy. An argument based upon the variations presented
by the manifestations of _morality_ and _religion_, would be a
neglect of the fact that these faculties are the attributes of the
human kingdom, that they are wanting in the other kingdoms, and are
not in consequence susceptible of any comparison of this kind. In
that which is exclusively human, man can only be compared with man.
In conclusion, the facts of the variations and differences existing
in man between _different groups_, are _of the same nature_ as
those established between _different races_ of animals and plants.
The nature of these phenomena cannot then be brought forward as
an argument in favour of the theory that these groups are so many
species.