INTERCROSSING AND FUSION OF CHARACTERS IN ANIMAL RACES; APPLICATION
TO MAN.
Without even quitting the ground of morphology, it will be easy to
prove which theory is most probably the correct one.
We know that naturalists consider that all individuals which pass
from one to another by invisible shades belong to the same species,
however different the extremes may be. All great museums contain
examples of this fact.
The grounds for this conclusion are much stronger when there exists
an _intercrossing of characters_. This intercrossing exists when
a very decided and apparently exclusive character reappears in
one or several individuals differing widely in other respects,
and undoubtedly belonging to distinct groups. It is a case of
intercrossing again, when the same character varies in such a manner
as to lead, if considered apart, to the division of a natural group,
and to the separation of the fractions into very different groups.
Now there is no animal species which presents these essentially
morphological characters in a higher degree than man. When the human
groups are studied in some detail, the difficulty does not consist
in finding resemblances, but in clearly defining the differences.
The more carefully they are considered, the more they disappear and
become obliterated. We then understand the accounts given by most
trustworthy travellers, such as d’Abbadie, of countries where the
Negro and the White live side by side. In their extremes these two
types are certainly very distinct. But in Abyssinia, for example,
where they have long lived in contact, and intermingled, the Negro
is no longer characterised by either colour, features, or hair, but
simply by the exaggerated protuberance of the heel. This character in
its turn, however, loses its value on the Eastern coast of Africa,
where whole Negro tribes have the heel formed like ours.
This is an example of _intercrossing_, and they could easily be
multiplied. I have already observed how closely the Aryan or
Dravidian Hindoos, African or Melanesian Negroes and manifestly
Semitic populations may resemble each other in colour. The following
is a still more striking example. Desmoulins regarded the perforation
of the olecranon process as one of the most decided characters of his
_Austro-African species of man_. Now this perforation reappears in
Egyptian and Guanche mummies, in a large number of European skeletons
of the neolithic period, the crania of which moreover, exhibit no
other relations with those of the Bosjesmans, and even in some
Europeans of the present epoch.
The intercrossing of characters between human groups becomes still
more evident from the comparison of numerical data taken from a
number of different groups. I shall confine myself for the moment to
giving the results arrived at by the study of the stature when the
representative numbers are placed in order. We shall presently meet
with other examples.
I here reproduce the table published in the _Voyage of the Novara_,
by Dr. Weisbach. I have added to the figures of the Austrian savant a
few data relating especially to the smallest races. I have also given
the maxima and minima where I have been able to procure them, so as
to make the extent of the variation more appreciable than is possible
from the average alone:
STATURE OF DIFFERENT HUMAN RACES.
m. ft. in.
Bosjesmans (min.) } 1·100 3 3·37
Esquimaux (min.) }
Obongo (young) 1·360 4 5·64
Bosjesmans (av.) } 1·370 4 5·93
Mincopees (min.) }
Lapps (min.) 1·380 4 6·33
Aëtas (min.) 1·396 4 6·96
Semangs (min.) 1·420 4 7·90
Mincopees (av.) 1·436 4 8·53
Bosjesmans (max.) 1·445 4 8·89
Guanches 1·447 4 8·97
Semangs (av.) 1·448 4 9·00
Semangs (max.) 1·473 4 9·99
Mincopees (max.) 1·480 4 10·17
Aëtas (av.) 1·482 4 10·35
Fuegians (min.) 1·488 4 10·58
Papuans 1·489 4 10·62
Chinese (min.) 1·520 4 11·84
Patagonians (min.) 1·530 5 0·24
Lapps (av.) 1·532 5 0·31
Aymaras (min.) 1·537 5 0·51
Sclaves (min.) 1·540 5 0·62
French (min.) 1·543 5 0·75
Javanese (min.) 1·549 5 0·98
Negroes (?) 1·555 5 1·22
Juags } 1·561 5 1·45
Aëtas (max.) }
Aymaras (av.) 1·563 5 1·53
Germans (min.) }
Tartars of Orotschi } 1·570 5 1·81
Kamskadales }
Malays of Malacca }
Dyaks (min.) } 1·574 5 1·97
Australians (min.) }
New Caledonians (min.) }
Cochin Chinese (av.) } 1·575 5 2·00
Transgangians (av.) }
Vanikorians 1·583 5 2·32
Timurians 1·586 5 2·46
Amboynians } 1·595 5 2·79
Peruvians }
Battas } 1·597 5 2·87
Malays (av.) }
Nicobarians 1·599 5 2·95
Australians (av.) }
Quichnas } 1·600 5 2·99
English (min.) }
Pouleyers (av.) 1·610 5 3·38
Lapps (max.) 1·613 5 3·50
Tahitians (av.) 1·614 5 3·54
Australians (av.) 1·617 5 3·66
Toulcous } 1·620 5 3·78
Guaranis }
Papuans of Vaigiou 1·624 5 3·94
Mincopees (max.) }
Fuegians (av.) }
Californians } 1·625 5 3·98
Madurese }
Cingalese }
Ando-Peruvians 1·627 5 4·05
French of the South } 1·630 5 4·17
Chinese (av.) }
Nicobarians 1·631 5 4·21
Belgians (min.) 1·632 5 4·25
Austrian Sclaves (min.) 1·634 5 4·33
Austrian Roumanians } 1·635 5 4·37
Magyars }
Jews 1·637 5 4·45
Dravidas (av.) 1·640 5 4·57
Araucanians 1·641 5 4·61
Bavarians 1·643 5 4·68
Antisians 1·645 5 4·76
Fuegians (max.) }
Crees } 1·650 5 4·96
Dyaks (max.) }
Bugis 1·653 5 5·08
Negroes (?) 1·655 5 5·16
French, working classes (av.) 1·657 5 5·24
Austrian Germans 1·658 5 5·27
Esquimaux of Melville Is. 1·659 5 5·31
Roumanians (min.) 1·660 5 5·35
Fuegians (max.) }
Chiquitos } 1·663 5 5·47
Hottentots }
French of the North } 1·665 5 5·56
Algerian Arabs }
New Caledonians } 1·670 5 5·75
Moxos }
Pampeans (av.) 1·673 5 5·87
Esquimaux of Savage Island }
Hawaïans } 1·676 5 5·98
New Californians }
Malays of Soolo }
Austrian Sclaves (av.) } 1·678 5 6·06
Russians }
Javanese 1·679 5 6·10
Germans }
Negroes } 1·680 5 6·14
Charruas }
French, upper classes (av.) 1·681 5 6·18
Ojibbeways (min.) } 1·682 5 6·22
Natives of Madras }
Fijians 1·684 5 6·31
Negroes of Sokoto 1·685 5 6·34
Belgians (av.) 1·686 5 6·38
English (av.) 1·687 5 6·42
Pampas Indians 1·688 5 6·46
Marquesas Islanders } 1·689 5 6·50
Esquimaux of Boothia sound }
Somalis 1·690 5 6·54
New Zealanders 1·695 5 6·73
Puelches }
Comma Negroes } 1·700 5 6·93
Tahitians (min.) }
Letts }
Rotuma Islanders } 1·701 5 6·96
Courouglis (av.) }
Austrian Roumanians 1·702 5 7·00
Kabyles (av.) 1·703 5 7·04
Caroline Islanders 1·705 5 7·13
Marianne Islanders 1·708 5 7·24
English (max.) }
Esquimaux of Kotzebue Strait } 1·714 5 7·48
Australians (max.) }
Pottowatomis }
Caraïbes } 1·727 5 7·99
Rarakaïans }
Tschuwacks 1·728 5 8·03
Patagonians (av. of D’Orb.) 1·730 5 8·11
Tschercassians 1·731 5 8·15
Patagonians (av. of D’Urv.) 1·732 5 8·19
Sepoys of Bengal 1·733 5 8·23
Chinese (max.) 1·744 5 8·66
Niquallis 1·752 5 8·97
Hawaïans 1·755 5 9·09
New Zealanders 1·757 5 9·17
Patagonians (av. Must.) } 1·770 5 9·69
Germans (max.) }
Polynesians (av.) 1·776 5 9·92
Pitcairn Islanders 1·777 5 9·96
Roumanians (max.) 1·780 5 10·08
Ojibbeways (av.) } 1·781 5 10·12
Agaces of the Pampas }
New Caledonians (max.) 1·785 5 10·28
Tahitians (av.) } 1·786 5 10·32
Marquesas Islanders }
Stewart Islanders }
Kaffirs } 1·789 5 10·44
Dutch }
Belgians (max.) }
Sclaves } 1·800 5 10·86
Aymaras (max.) }
Marquesas Islanders (max.) }
Tahitians (max.) 1·803 5 10·98
New Zealanders 1·815 5 11·46
Mhaya 1·841 6 0·48
Caraïbes 1·868 6 6·54
Ojibbeways (max.) 1·875 6 1·82
Schiffer Islanders 1·895 6 2·61
New Zealanders (max.) 1·904 6 2·96
Patagonians of the North (max. of D’Orb.) 1·915 6 3·39
Patagonians of the South (max. Musters) 1·924 6 3·75
Schiffer Islanders } 1·930 6 3·98
Tongatuban Islanders }
We here see what strange relations and what a singular confusion rise
from a consideration of the stature. Numbers given in the same order,
representing the size of the skull, the cephalic indices, the weight
of the brain, will give the same striking result.
We must also observe that there is a great majority of means in this
table. Now we see that the discrepancies between these means are less
than the discrepancies between the maximum and minimum of a single
race, so much so that races widely distinct from each other intervene
between them.
Now let us mentally compare instead of these groups, the individuals
of which they are composed. Is it not clear that if they were placed
according to height, we should pass from one to the other with
scarcely the difference of a millimetre; but is it not also clear
that the confusion would become much greater than it appears even in
the table?
I ask anyone who possesses even the smallest knowledge of zoology
and zootechny whether it would be in a collection of species that he
would expect to find the most evident affinities destroyed by the
application of this method? Would it not be rather in a collection
of _races_ that similar facts would be met with, as, for example,
in canine races, where the mastiff and its young, the greyhound of
Saintonge and the Italian greyhound, the large and the small carriage
dog would be separated from each other by a number of other races if
stature alone were taken into account.
The intercrossing and fusion of characters, so marked between human
groups, are inexplicable if we consider these groups as species,
unless we admit that the morphological relations between these
_human species_ are of an entirely different nature to the relations
established between _animal species_. But this _hypothesis_ makes an
_exception_ of man; we have, therefore, the right to regard it as
_false_.
If, on the contrary, we look upon these groups as nothing more than
races of a single species, all these facts of intercrossing and
fusion agree with what may be observed in plants and animals and
replace man under the dominion of general laws.
Thus, without quitting _morphological considerations_, which
correspond to the _idea of resemblance_ contained in the definition
of species, we are justified in concluding in favour of monogenism.
To confirm this conclusion, however, we must turn our attention
to other facts which correspond to the _idea of filiation_, and
consider the teachings of _physiology_ concerning the phenomena of
_generation_.