Home
  By Author [ A  B  C  D  E  F  G  H  I  J  K  L  M  N  O  P  Q  R  S  T  U  V  W  X  Y  Z |  Other Symbols ]
  By Title [ A  B  C  D  E  F  G  H  I  J  K  L  M  N  O  P  Q  R  S  T  U  V  W  X  Y  Z |  Other Symbols ]
  By Language
all Classics books content using ISYS

Download this book: [ ASCII | HTML | PDF ]

Look for this book on Amazon


We have new books nearly every day.
If you would like a news letter once a week or once a month
fill out this form and we will give you a summary of the books for that week or month by email.

Title: On the Phenomena of Hybridity in the Genus Homo
Author: Broca, Paul
Language: English
As this book started as an ASCII text book there are no pictures available.
Copyright Status: Not copyrighted in the United States. If you live elsewhere check the laws of your country before downloading this ebook. See comments about copyright issues at end of book.

*** Start of this Doctrine Publishing Corporation Digital Book "On the Phenomena of Hybridity in the Genus Homo" ***

This book is indexed by ISYS Web Indexing system to allow the reader find any word or number within the document.



Libraries.)



  Publications of the
  Anthropological Society of London.


  HYBRIDITY IN THE GENUS HOMO.

  BROCA.



  ON THE

  PHENOMENA OF HYBRIDITY

  IN THE

  GENUS HOMO.


  BY

  DR. PAUL BROCA,

  SÉCRÉTAIRE GÉNÉRAL À LA SOCIÉTÉ D’ANTHROPOLOGIE DE PARIS, HONORARY
  FELLOW OF THE ANTHROPOLOGICAL SOCIETY OF LONDON.


  EDITED,

  With the Permission of the Author,

  BY

  C. CARTER BLAKE, F.G.S., F.A.S.L.,

  HONORARY SECRETARY OF THE ANTHROPOLOGICAL SOCIETY OF LONDON, FOREIGN
  ASSOCIATE OF THE SOCIÉTÉ D’ANTHROPOLOGIE DE PARIS, MEMBER OF THE COMITÉ
  D’ARCHÉOLOGIE AMÉRICAINE DE FRANCE, ETC., ETC.


  LONDON:

  PUBLISHED FOR THE ANTHROPOLOGICAL SOCIETY, BY

  LONGMAN, GREEN, LONGMAN, & ROBERTS,

  PATERNOSTER ROW.

  1864.

T. RICHARDS, 37, GREAT QUEEN STREET.

  TO

  RICHARD OWEN, ESQ.,

  F.R.S., M.D., D.C.L., LL.D., F.L.S., F.G.S., F.Z.S.

  FOREIGN ASSOCIATE OF THE ANTHROPOLOGICAL SOCIETY OF PARIS, AND HONORARY
  FELLOW OF THE ANTHROPOLOGICAL SOCIETY OF LONDON,


  ARE DEDICATED THESE PAGES,


  As a Testimony

  OF THE RESPECT AND FRIENDSHIP OF

  HIS PUPIL,

  C. CARTER BLAKE.



EDITOR’S PREFACE.


The Publishing Committee of the ANTHROPOLOGICAL SOCIETY have done me
the honour to confide to me the task of editing Dr. Broca’s valuable
little volume. This duty I have now fulfilled, and hope that the
members of the Society and the general public will experience the same
pleasure in reading the translation, as I received when first I perused
the original.

The causes which led the committee to suggest the publication of the
present translation are lucidly expressed by the motto which Dr. Broca
placed on his title-page. The public mind is so little acquainted with
the real facts relating to the hybridity of the Races of Man, that
its investigation, “_non ex vulgi opinione, sed ex sano judicio_,”
is necessary to the efficient progress of our science. Such an
appeal, however, necessitates that the whole subject should be again
reviewed, and to attain this object the perusal of a work on similar
principles to that of Dr. Broca becomes the primary requisite for
future researches. It may be said, that no work which so completely
investigates the whole subject of Human Hybridity has ever been
published, and the Council having confirmed the recommendation of the
Publishing Committee, I have endeavoured to perform my allotted task
with as much prospect of success as could be anticipated amidst the
pressure of numerous and laborious avocations unconnected with the
Society.

The necessity for the publication of this work in England may be
conceived, when we reflect on the laxly defined ideas which form an
integral part of the intellectual heritage of even educated Englishmen,
with regard to the problems of anthropology. We have been so often
told, that all races of men have been demonstrably proved to be fertile
_inter se_, that many have conceived that the laws regulating this
presumed fertility are ascertained and fixed, beyond the reach of
disproof, or even of doubt. The Author and Editor of the following
pages are, however, of a different opinion; and are content to wait for
the accumulation of future facts.

To obviate any misconstruction which may be placed on my meaning on
this topic, I shall quote the words of the great Dutch philosopher:--

  “I invite not the vulgar, therefore, nor those whose minds, like
  theirs, are full of prejudices, to the perusal of this book. I would
  much rather that they should entirely neglect it, than that they
  should misconstrue its purpose and contents after the fashion usual
  with them.”

I should have felt more gratification if the task of interpreting the
thoughts of the great French master of our science had fallen into
worthier hands than my own. The habitual methods of thought of Dr.
PAUL BROCA are so exact, his style so terse, his knowledge of the
literature of Anthropology so vast, and his power of application and
concentration of ideas so powerful, that a just preference might have
selected another Editor. It has scarcely been necessary for me to add a
single foot-note to the lucid exposition of the Secretary of our parent
Society.

It is my pleasurable duty to thank my friend Dr. James Hunt, the
President of our Society, for the kindness by which he placed in
my hands the editorship of this volume, and for many most valuable
suggestions regarding it. To my colleague Mr. J. Frederick Collingwood,
for whose friendly assistance in the performance of the secretarial
duties I am indebted for the leisure which has enabled me to edit this
work, my thanks are also due.

To the Council and to the Society I now commit this little tract, an
earnest of the more important works which will be hereafter published
during the year 1864, in the hope that it may ultimately advance the
best interests of the science all sincere anthropologists must desire
to aid.

  C. C. B.

  4, ST. MARTIN’S PLACE,
  _March_, 1864.


GLOSSARIAL NOTE.


The significations of the following words, habitually used by Dr.
Broca, are appended:--

  AGENESIC. Mongrels of the first generation, entirely
  unfertile, either between each other, or with the two parent species,
  and consequently being unable to produce either direct descendants or
  mongrels of the second generation.

  DYSGENESIC. Mongrels of the first generation, nearly altogether
  sterile.

  _a._ Unfertile with each other, therefore with no direct descendants.

  _b._ They sometimes, but rarely and with difficulty, breed with one
  or the other parent species. The mongrels of the second generation,
  produced by this interbreeding, are infertile.

  PARAGENESIC. Mongrels of the first generation having a partial
  fecundity.

  _a._ They are hardly fertile or infertile _inter se_, and when they
  produce direct descendants, these have merely a decreasing fertility,
  tending to necessary extinction at the end of some generations.

  _b._ They breed easily with one at least of the two parent species.
  The mongrels of the second generation, issued from this second
  breeding, are themselves and their descendants fertile _inter se_,
  and with the mongrels of the first generation, with the nearest
  allied pure species, and with the intermediate mongrels arising from
  these various crossings.

  EUGENESIC. Mongrels of the first generation entirely fertile.

  _a._ They are fertile _inter se_, and their direct descendants are
  equally so.

  _b._ They breed easily and indiscriminately with the two parent
  species; the mongrels of the second generation, in their turn are,
  themselves and their descendants, indefinitely fertile, both _inter
  se_ or with the mongrels of all kinds which result from the mixture
  of the two parent species.



CONTENTS.

                                                                     PAGE
  DEDICATION                                                            v

  EDITOR’S PREFACE                                                    vii

  Glossarial Note                                                       x


  SECTION I.

  General remarks on the interbreeding of human races                   1

  Pretended examples of hybrid races (_note_ on the Griquas of
    Southern Africa)                                                    3

  Significations of the words _race_ and _type_                        12


  SECTION II.

  On Eugenesic Hybridity in the Genus _Homo_                           16


  SECTION III.

  Examples tending to prove that the interbreeding of certain
    human races is not Eugenesic                                       25

  Remarks on the interpretation of human hybridity                     26

  Relative infecundity of the interbreeds between the White and
    Negro                                                              28

  Relative sterility of some Mulattoes in the first generation         30

  Moral or physical inferiority of some Mulattoes                   _ib._

  Malay and mixed breeds                                               40

  Relative sterility of the interbreeds between the Europeans
    and the Australians or Tasmanians                                  45

  Observations of Count Strzelecki; discussion                         55

  Conclusions on human hybridity                                       60


  SECTION IV.

  Recapitulation and Conclusion                                        61



ON THE PHENOMENA OF HYBRIDITY IN THE HUMAN SPECIES.



SECTION I.

GENERAL OBSERVATIONS ON CROSSING IN HUMAN RACES.


That very ingenious writer, M. A. de Gobineau,[1] whose efforts have
been directed towards bringing the light of modern ethnology to bear
upon the political and social history of nations, but who, in this very
difficult and almost entirely new inquiry, has more than once indulged
in paradoxical generalisations, has thought proper to affirm, in his
_Essay on the Inequality of Human Races_ (1855), that the crossing
of races constantly produces disastrous effects, and that, sooner or
later, a physical and moral degeneration is the inevitable result
thereof. It is, therefore, chiefly to this cause that he attributes
the decline of the Roman Republic and the downfall of liberty, which
was soon followed by the decline of civilisation. I am very far from
sharing his opinion, and, were this the proper place, I might show that
the social corruption and the intellectual degradation which prepared
the ruin of the Roman power was due to quite different causes. M.
Gobineau’s proposition appears to me by far too general; and I am still
more opposed to the opinion of those who advance that every mixed race
separated from the parent stocks is incapable of perpetuation.[2]
It has even been asserted that the United States of America, where
the Anglo-Saxon race is still predominant, but which is overrun by
immigrants of various other races, is, by that very circumstance,
threatened with decay, inasmuch as this continuous immigration may have
the effect of producing a hybrid race containing the germ of future
sterility. Do we not know that, on the faith of this prognostication,
a certain party has proposed the restriction of foreign immigration,
and even in England there have been serious men who have predicted,
from ethnological causes, the overthrow of the United States, just as
Ezekiel predicted the ruin of Alexandria.

When we see the prosperity and the power of the new continent grow
with such unexampled rapidity, we can certainly put no faith in such a
prediction. Still there must have been a certain number of fundamental
facts, which led even monogenists to deny the viability of _all_
crossed races. They must have sought in vain among the nations of the
earth for a race manifestly hybrid, with well-defined characters,
intermediate between two known races, perpetuating itself without the
concurrence of the parent races.

“When the facts quoted above,” says M. Georges Pouchet, “are not
sufficient to prove that a mongrel breed cannot be engendered, can we
anywhere find one? Do we find a people conserving a medium type between
two other types? We see them nowhere just as little as we see a race
of mules. The fact is, that such a race, such a type can only have an
ephemeral subjective existence.”[3]

The question, where do we find hybrid races subsisting by themselves,
has been asked before M. Pouchet. Dr. Prichard, in replying to it,
could only find three instances:--1. The Griquas, the progeny of the
Hottentots and the Dutch. 2. The Cafusos of the forests of Varama
(Brazil), a race described by Spix and Martius, and, according to them,
the offspring of indigenous Americans and African Negroes. 3. The
mop-headed Papuans inhabiting the island of Waigiou and the surrounding
islands and the northern part of New Guinea, and who, according to MM.
Quoy and Gaimard, are a hybrid race, the issue of a union of Malays and
the Papuans proper.[4]

These three examples have been objected to, and are indeed liable
to objections.[5] We know next to nothing about the Cafusos, and no
one can positively assert that they have remained unmixed with the
indigenous race; but we know for certain that the Griquas have risen
since the commencement of this century around a Protestant mission, by
the fusion of some Dutch-Hottentot _bastaard_ families with a large
number of the Hottentot race, the Bosjesmen, and the Kaffir race. This
example then proves, by no means, that a mixed race can perpetuate
itself separately.[6]

With regard to the mop-headed Papuans, they live in a region the
ethnography of which is scarcely known. MM. Quoy and Gaimard are of
opinion that they are the issue of a mixture between the Malays and
indigenous Negroes (_sic_); but they only advanced this opinion as an
hypothesis: “They appeared to us to hold a medium place between those
people (Malays) and the Negroes in regard to character, physiognomy,
and the nature of their hair.”[7] This is all those authors say; but
Mr. Lesson instead of quoting this as a mere hypothesis, says, “These
people have been perfectly described by MM. Quoy and Gaimard, who were
the first to _demonstrate_ that they constitute a hybrid race, and are,
_unquestionably_, the issue of Papuans (properly so called) and Malays
located in those parts, and which form the mass of the population.” Mr.
de Rienzi, on the other hand, has described two varieties of Papuan
hybrids: one variety the issue of a crossing between the Papuans
and the Malays,--the Papou-Malays; the second variety, the issue of
an intermixture between the Papuans and the Alforian-Endamenes--the
Pou-Endamenes.[8] There is already a complication here. Now comes
Mr. Maury, who maintains that the race issued from the Papuans and
Malays is the Alforian race.[9] What are we to conclude from these
contradictions? M. Quoy and Gaimard had a certain impression, M. Rienzi
entertained a somewhat different impression, to which the authorities
cited by Mr. Maury are altogether opposed. All is then, as yet, an
hypothesis, and the question is as yet doubtful. In this uncertainty it
might well be asked whether the Malays, the Alfourous, the mop-headed
Papuans, and the Papuans properly so called might not be as many pure
races. It is not merely in the region of the mop-headed Papuans that
the other three races are to be met with. The Malays, an invading
people _par excellence_, have, like the English, established themselves
on all the coasts accessible to their vessels, and if the mop-headed
race occupies only a very confined district, and is perfectly unknown
elsewhere where the same elements are present, we are permitted to
conclude that it is not the result of an intermixture. Moreover, Dr.
Latham, the most zealous of Dr. Prichard’s pupils, informs us that Mr.
Earle has seen and described “the real and undoubted hybrids” of the
Papuans and Malays, and that these are altogether different from the
mop-headed Papuans.[10]

It will be perceived that the example of the Papuans is a worse
selection than that of the Griquas, since it is very probable that
those mop-headed men, the type of which was so perfectly described
by Dampier two centuries ago, having been since preserved without
alteration, are a pure race. Granting even that it is demonstrated
that they belong to a hybrid race, they can scarcely be cited as a
mixed race persisting by themselves, since, so far from living secluded
from the two races from which they are said to be the issue, they
live with them in the same localities. MM. Quoy and Gaimard, in their
description of these pretended mongrels, add that there were Negroes
among them (by which name they designate the Papuans proper) which
formed a part of the tribe which visited us daily. There were even
among them two individuals of a higher complexion, which, rightly or
wrongly, were considered to be descended from Europeans or Chinese. It
was thus a very mixed people. Mr. Lesson, speaking of the population
of the small island of Waigiou,[11] says that two races are found
there, the Malays and the Alfourous, besides the hybrid races of the
Papuans: “These are men without vigour or moral energy, subjected to
the authority of the Malay rajahs, and frequently reduced to slavery
by the surrounding islanders.”[12] But it is well known what is the
consequence of slavery, especially under an equatorial climate, and
among a people given to incontinency. It is, then, simply impossible
that the mop-headed race of the Isle of Waigiou should remain free from
intermixture with the Alfourous and the Malays, and if this race be
really hybrid, it is not easy to see how Prichard and his adherents are
authorised to assert that they persist by themselves.

The three examples adduced by Prichard having thus proved without any
absolute value, a diametrically opposite doctrine has been advanced. It
has been said that since this author was obliged to go so far for such
indifferent examples, it amounts to a proof that he could not find any
others,[13] and the conclusion was arrived at that a mixed race neither
has nor could have a permanent existence.

This novel assertion is perfectly erroneous, and if it found adherents,
it is simply because the question has been badly put; because the word
_race_ has not received a precise signification, and consequently, a
very confused acceptation has been given to the term.

Among the various characters which distinguish the numerous varieties
of the _genus homo_, some are more or less important, and more or less
evident. To distinguish two races, a single character, however slight,
is sufficient, provided it be hereditary and sufficiently fixed. If,
for instance, two peoples differed merely from each other by the colour
of the hair and the beard, though they may resemble each other in every
other respect, by the simple fact that the one has black, whilst the
other has fair hair, it may be asserted that they are not of the same
race. This is the popular and the true meaning of the term race, which,
however, does not necessarily implicate the idea either of identity
or diversity of origin. Thus all ethnologists and historians, all the
monogenists, and polygenistic authors say that the Irish proper are not
of the same race as the English. The Germans, the Celts, the Basques,
the Sclaves, the Jews, Arabs, Kabyles, etc., etc., are considered
more or less separate races, more or less easy to be characterised,
and more or less distinguished by their manners, tongues, history and
origin. There are thus a large number of human races; but if, instead
of considering all the characters, we confine ourselves to take into
consideration but a few of the more important, or if, after having by
an analytical process, first studied the various races separately, we
now subject them to a synthetic process, we soon recognise that there
exists among them numerous affinities, which enable us to dispose them
in a certain number of natural groups.

The ensemble of the characters common to each group, constitute the
type of that group. Thus, all the races we have just enumerated, and
many others, have the skin white, regular features, soft hair, oval
face, vertical jaws, and elliptical cranium, etc. These points of
resemblance give them in some sort a family likeness, by which they
are recognised at once, and which has caused them to be designated by
the collective name of Caucasian races. The hyperborean races, and
those of Eastern Asia, constitute the family of Mongolian races; the
group of Ethiopian races equally comprises a large number of black
races with woolly hair, and a prognathous head. The American and the
Malayo-Polynesian races form the two last groups.

It must not be believed that all human races can with equal facility
be ranged in either of these divisions; nor must we believe that the
characteristic traits of one group are equally marked in all the
dependent races; nor even that they are found combined in any of
these races; nor, finally, that in the centre of each group we find
a typical race in which all the characters have their maximum of
development. This might be the case if all known races had descended
from five primitive stocks, as admitted by several polygenists, or
if, as many monogenists think, humanity, _one_ in the beginning, had
soon afterwards been divided into five principal trunks, from which
issued, as so many accessory branches, the numerous sub-divisions
which constitute the secondary races. But there is no race which can
pretend to personify within itself the type to which it belongs. This
type is fictitious; the description is an ideal one, like the forms of
the Apollo de Belvedere. Human types, like all other types, are merely
abstractions, and in proportion as we attach more importance to this or
that character, we obtain a more or less considerable number of types.
Thus, Blumenbach had five, Cuvier only three, and Bérard describes
fifteen types. This is also proved by the fact, that whilst many races
attach themselves directly and evidently to a fixed type, there are
others belonging to two very dissimilar types. Thus the Abyssinians
are Caucasian in form and Ethiopian by colour. The description of the
principal types is thus merely a methodical process, fit to facilitate,
by the formation of a certain number of groups, the comparison of human
races, and to simplify the partial description of each. This division
has, moreover, the advantage of establishing for the greater part of
the races, their degree of relative affinity or divergence. It even
accords to a certain point with their primitive repartition upon the
surface of the globe, which has permitted, without doing any violence
to the facts, to distinguish the types by denominations borrowed from
geography.[14]

There is in the human mind a tendency to personify abstractions.
These ideal types have usurped a place in the domain of facts, so
that a real existence has been given to them. The monogenists had,
strictly speaking, a right to do so without any violence to their
principles; but the polygenists, who have followed their example,
have sinned against logic. The former attribute all varieties of the
human species to the numerous modifications of five _principal_ races,
issued themselves from one common stock, and the same influences which,
according to then, have in the origin produced fundamental races,
have afterwards by an analogous process produced the _secondary_
races. All this is sufficiently clear; and such stood the question
when the polygenists appeared in the arena. Their first efforts were
directed to attack the doctrine in its essential foundations, and to
demonstrate that by no natural causation could Whites be transformed
into Negroes, or Negroes into Mongolians; they therefore proclaimed
the multiplicity of human origin and the plurality of species. Be it
that they have shrunk from the idea of causing too great a revolution
in science, or that they thought that it would conduce sooner to the
triumph of their doctrine, they retained as far as possible the number
of species, and confined themselves to assume a primitive stock for
each of the five races described by the Unitarians. I do not assert
that all polygenists followed this course, as some proceeded in a more
independent manner. Bory de Saint-Vincent, Desmoulins, P. Bérard,
Morton, had the courage to break entirely with the past, and to remodel
the classical divisions. They found, however, but few imitators; and
many polygenists are to this day content to assign a distinct origin to
each of the five principal trunks, which constitute for the monogenists
the five fundamental races, but which are to us only natural groups
formed by the union of races or species of the same type. They continue
also very often to use the term _race_ to designate the _ensemble_ of
all individuals of each group, adopting thus by a sort of transaction
the language of those whose system they reject; and thus they speak of
the white or Caucasian race, the yellow or Mongolian race, the black
or Ethiopian race, etc., as if all these individuals of a Caucasian
type resembled each other to constitute one race; as if, for instance,
the brown Celts and the fair-haired Germans had descended from the
same primitive stock. This contradiction has given a handle to the
monogenists; for if climate and mode of life may cause a German to
become a Celt, there is no reason why, under certain influences, a Celt
might not become a Berber, a Berber a Foulah, a Foulah a Negro, and a
Negro an Australian.

I easily comprehend how careful we ought to be to employ in
Anthropology the term _species_. It can scarcely be used with certainty
until science has clearly circumscribed the limits of each species of
men. This moment is not come yet, and may, perhaps, never arrive, for,
in the midst of constant changes produced by crossing, migrations,
and conquests, and with the certainty that several races, or a great
number of them, have disappeared within historical time,[15] it seems
impossible to appreciate the degree of purity of certain races, to
discover their origin, to know whether they are autochthonic or
exotic, whether they belonged originally to this or that Fauna, and
re-establish the Ethnology of our planet as it was in the beginning.
To fix the number of primitive species of men, or even the number of
actual species, is an insoluble problem to us, and probably to our
successors. The attempts of Desmoulins et Bory de Saint Vincent have
only produced imperfect sketches, which have led to contradictory
classifications, where the number of arbitrary divisions is nearly
equal to more natural divisions.

The term species has, in classical language, an absolute sense,
implying both the idea of a special conformation and special origin,
and if some races--the Australians, for instance--unite these
conditions in a sufficient degree, to constitute a clearly marked
species, many other pure or mixed races escape, in this respect, a
rigorous appreciation. It is for these reasons that many polygenists,
after having proclaimed the multiplicity of the origins of humanity,
and having recognised the impossibility of determining the number
and the characters of the primitive stocks, have justly avoided
methodically to divide the human genus into species. Many among them,
however, who thought that they were, nevertheless, bound to establish
divisions, have committed the error to accept the basis of the
classification of the monogenists, and, like them, to establish five
chief human families, and, like them, to admit that the individuals
of each family are issued from a common trunk, with this difference,
that, whilst the monogenists assume that the five primary trunks
have proceeded from the same stock, and have the same roots, the
pentagenists (if we may use this term) assume five distinct and
independent stocks. Logically speaking, it would have been requisite to
term the five fundamental races of the monogenists _species_, but it
is easy to perceive that, for many reasons, the term species cannot be
employed here in an absolute sense. The pentagenists have felt this,
and, for want of a better term, use the word _race_, which has thus
been diverted from its real acceptation.

The word _race_ has thus, in the language of authors, two very
different significations; one is particular and exact, the other
general and misleading. Taken in the first sense, it designates
individuals sufficiently resembling each other, that we may, without
prejudging their origin, and without deciding whether they are the
issues of one or several primitive couples, admit, if necessary, as
theoretically possible, that they have descended from common parents.
Such are, for instance, among the white races, the Arabs, the Basques,
the Celts, the Kimris, the Germans, the Berbers, etc.; and among the
black races, the Ethiopian Negroes, the Caffres, the Tasmanians,
Australians, Papuans, etc.

In the second, that is to say, in a general sense, the term race
designates the _ensemble_ of all such individuals who have a certain
number of characters in common, and who, though differing in other
characters, and divided, perhaps, in an indefinite number of natural
groups or races, have to each other a greater morphological affinity
than they have with the rest of mankind.

Every confusion in words exposes us to errors in the interpretation
of facts, and this rather long digression in relation to the origin
of a denomination, borrowed by certain polygenists from the language
of monogenists, enables us to understand the denial of the existence
of mixed races, and why Prichard could only oppose to this idea the
doubtful and fictitious examples of the Cafusos, the Griquas, and the
mop-headed Papuans.

If, indeed, it were true that there are only five races of men on
the globe, and if it were capable of demonstration that either of
them, in mixing with another, produced eugenesic Mulattos capable of
constituting a mixed race enduring by itself, without the ulterior
concurrence of the parent races, the embarrassment would not yet be
at an end. After having succeeded to establish such a demonstration
for two of the chief races, it would by no means necessarily result
that the intercrossings of the nine other combinations are eugenesic
like the first. We should then be obliged to prove (what is evidently
impracticable), by ten successive examples, that the ten possible
intercrossings between the five fundamental races are all equally and
completely prolific. The difficulty is such, that Dr. Prichard, after
much research, could only find the three instances already cited and
refuted. These facts having proved inconclusive, and other facts which
we shall mention presently having induced the theory that _certain_
intermixtures are imperfectly prolific, the pentagenists were led to
the opinion that the possibility of a definitive intermixture of races
is by no means established, and that, on the contrary, this possibility
may be denied.

The pentagenists occupied themselves at first chiefly with the
intermixture of the five chief races; but even from this point of view,
and taking the term race in a general sense, their negation, though,
it must be admitted, far from being justifiable, is still founded upon
a more solid basis, and less removed from the truth than the opposed
affirmation. Hence it was considered valuable _ad interim_. But the
principle of non-intermixture of races being once promulgated, the
confusion of terms soon became apparent. The negation which was at
first applied merely to the artificial groups formed by the reunion
of races of the same type was applied to natural races, and thus
arose that frightful proposition, that _no mixed races can subsist in
humanity_.

It is noteworthy how this excessive and exclusive theory differs from
the first, which it has displaced. There is such a gap between the
starting point and the conclusion, that it could never have been
cleared had not the ambiguous term _race_ concealed the distance.
The fact is established that affinities of organisation may exercise
some influence on the results of crossing. In studying the phenomena
of hybridity in quadrupeds and birds, we have already stated that
homœogenesis, without being _always_ proportionate to the degree of
the proximity of species, decreases _ordinarily_ in comparison with
more removed animals, and that probability induces us to expect similar
phenomena in the intermixture of human beings. But what have been the
bases of the monogenists and of the pentagenists in forming the five
ethnological groups, which constitute the five fundamental races?
Why have all Caucasian races been united by them in one family, and
called by them _the white_ or the Caucasian race? It has been already
stated because the races with a skin more or less white possess between
themselves a greater affinity than with any of the other races. In
other terms, the zoological distance is less between Celts, Germans,
Kimris, etc., compared with that existing between them and the Negroes,
Caffres, Lapps, Australians, Malays, etc.

Supposing now that it has been demonstrated--which it has not--that
the races of any group can _never_ engender a durable and permanent
line by an intermixture with any of the others, can we infer from this
that the races of the same group are equally incapable of producing
by their intermixture mongrels indefinitely prolific? Just as little
as the sterility of the union between the dog and the fox would
enable us to infer the sterility between the wolf and the dog; these
conclusions would be as little physiological as the former. Such as
deny the fecundity of the reciprocal cross-breeds of the five chief
primary races might err in some points, and be right as to others. But
those who extend this by far too general negation in applying it to
the intermixture of secondary races of the same group commit a more
serious error. They have reasoned like the monogenists, who knowing
from experience that _certain_ human races may become mixed without
limitation, have affirmed that _all_ the races, without exception, are
in a similar condition. There obtains thus a strange contradiction
in these two schools; the one maintains resolutely that all races
may intermix, and that their offspring and their descendants will
be as prolific as if they were of a pure race, whilst the second as
firmly sustains that no mixed race can have any other but an ephemeral
existence.

Between these opposite assertions we may well ask where lies the truth?
Facts must answer the question. We shall endeavour to examine a few.
Some of the facts are in favour of the monogenists, others support
the opinion of their adversaries, from which we shall be enabled to
infer that in the _genus homo_, as in the genera of their mammalia,
there are different degrees of homœogenesis, according to the races
or species; that the cross-breeds of certain races are perfectly
eugenesic; that others occupy a less elevated position in the series of
hybridity; and finally, that there are human races the homœogenesis
of which is still so obscure, that the results even of the first
intermixture are still doubtful.



SECTION II.

OF EUGENESIC HYBRIDITY IN MANKIND.


If the opinion I wish to combat were not supported by authors of
acknowledged talent, it might, perhaps, be superfluous to demonstrate
that there exists in the human species _eugenesic hybrids_. Most of the
readers of these pages must reconcile themselves to this qualification,
for assuredly men of a pure race are very rare in the country they
inhabit. Nothing is, in fact, more clear than that many modern nations,
to commence with the French, have been formed by the intermixture of
two or more races. My excellent teacher, Gerdy,[16] has devoted a long
chapter, in his Physiology, to this subject, and has, after great
research, arrived at the conclusion that all, or nearly all, actual
races have been crossed more than once, and that the primitive types
of mankind, altered and modified by so many crossings, are no longer
represented upon the earth. There is here much exaggeration: for there
are races who, by a peculiar geographical situation, and the prejudices
of caste or religion, have remained in a state of purity; and on the
other hand, as M. P. Bérard[17] remarks, it is not sufficient for the
production of a mongrel race, that two groups of different races should
become allied and fused. If in either of the groups there exists too
great a numerical inequality, the mongrels resume, after the lapse of
a few generations, nearly all the traits of the more numerous race,
and are fused in it. It is for this reason that, despite of numerous
crossings, many races have preserved all their characters from remote
antiquity. I have already had occasion to observe that the _Fellahs_
of present Egypt are exactly like the figures represented upon the
Pharaonic epoch.[18] No country has, however, been so frequently
conquered as Egypt, which from Cambyses to Mehemet-Ali, for more than
twenty-three centuries has been governed and oppressed by peoples of
foreign races, Persians, Greeks, Romans, Arabs, Turks, and Mamelukes.
The Macedonian colonies, founded by Alexander and his successors,
soon lost their ethnological character.[19] Southern Italy has not
preserved the impress of the Norman race. It would be vain to search
in Asia Minor for the descendants of the Gauls with fair hair,[20]
who once established themselves in Galatia; and though the Visigoths
possessed Spain for more than two centuries, and have never been
expelled from it, and we may without exaggeration compute the number
of the conquerors at several hundred thousand, and though their blood,
mitigated by intermixture, runs to this day in the veins of an immense
number of Spaniards, the latter have preserved no trace of their
Germanic origin.

But when the intermixture of races is effected in nearly equal
proportions, or if it be the result, not of one invasion, but of a
constant and abundant immigration, the case is altogether different,
and the fusion of the ethnological elements gives rise to a hybrid
population, in which the number of individuals of a pure race is
constantly diminishing, so that at the termination of a few centuries
the representatives of the two primitive types become the exceptions.
In a long Memoir “On the Ethnology of France,” which I lately read
before the Anthropological Society of Paris, I have shown to what
extent intermixture may modify the physiognomy of a people. Examining
in the first place the records of history on hand, the origin of
the populations of our departments, and appreciating as much as
possible the proportion of the elements which we find in combination;
determining, also, for each region the principal and the accessory
stocks, I have been enabled to find in the present French nation, in
the midst of the innumerable variations of stature, complexion, hair,
eyes, cephalic shapes, etc., which may everywhere be expected in mixed
races; I have been able to detect, I repeat, the characters of these
different races, and to recognise the more or less marked and dominant
impress of the Celts, Kimris, Romans, and Germans. I was even enabled,
on the statistics of recruiting, to give to my inquiries, in regard
to stature, a rigorous precision. I cannot in this place enter into
any details: I am obliged to refer the reader to the Memoir, which is
published by the Anthropological Society. In point of fact, it was
merely because eminent men have for some years doubted the existence of
eugenesic hybridity in mankind, that it became necessary to demonstrate
so evident a proposition, that the population of France in at least
nineteen-twentieths of our territory, presents in unequal degrees the
characters of mixed races.

This single example might suffice; but I have no doubt that by
examining in a similar manner the historical origin and the actual
condition of the peoples of Northern Italy, Southern Germany, Great
Britain--not to speak of the United States, where the fusion of
blood is probably inexplicable--it might be demonstrated with equal
certainty, that these different races have given birth, by their
intermixture, to ethnological modifications still recognisable. In all
these countries is the instability of anthropological characters in
contrast with the fixity which is the mark of pure races; and we might
say, without fear of error, that the greater part of Western Europe is
inhabited by mixed races.

Moreover, the authors who have denied the existence of mixed races,
have not denied that there are in Europe and elsewhere, numerous
vivacious populations, formed by the intermixture of two or several
distinct races. They merely asserted that mongrel breeds, whatever
their origin, were necessarily inferior in reference to fecundity to
individuals of pure blood, and that their direct descendants would
become extinct after a few generations, unless they contracted new
alliances with the mother races, or at least with one of them. If we
object to this, that the mixed populations possess everywhere, as those
of France and Great Britain, a vitality and fecundity which leaves
nothing to be desired, they reply that this proves nothing; that the
cross breeds are prolific in a collateral line, as is observed in cases
of paragenesic hybridity, and they add that two cases may present
themselves:

1. If among the two primitive races these obtain a very large numerical
inequality, the predominant race soon absorbs the other. After two
or three generations, the less numerous race counts scarcely one
representative, and the cross-breeds are fused in the more numerous
race. The latter thus returns to a state of original purity. The
mixed race has only a transitory duration, and leaves no trace of its
existence.

2. If, on the contrary, the two races, though numerically unequal,
are in sufficient proportion that neither can absorb the other, both
persist indefinitely beside each other upon the same soil. The hybrid
race which they engender, seems also to persist indefinitely; but
only in appearance, for they constantly intermarry with the pure
races, while the latter marry between themselves. The mixed race
gains thus, in every generation, a contingent equal to what it loses,
those which represent it at present are not the descendants of those
who represented the mixed race five or six generations back. It is
not maintained by itself: existing only under the condition of being
sustained by the races from which it is issued, and if there arrived a
time when it is completely isolated from these two races, and reduced
to its own forces, it would necessarily become extinct after a few
generations.

I might urge some objection against the first point, for it does not
seem to me to be demonstrated, that in a mixture of very unequal
proportions, the less numerous race exercises _no influence_ upon the
other race. I acknowledge, however, that this influence, if it exists,
is sufficiently slight to be set aside.

The second point is much more serious, for if accepted without
restriction, we must admit that eugenesic hybridity does not exist in
mankind, and that all cross-breeds, whatever their origin, whether they
are issued from nearly approaching or distant races, not merely the
descendants of whites and negroes, but also of Celts and Kimris, are
incapable of engendering a durable posterity. For my part, I believe
that such is actually the case with certain mongrel-breeds; I believe
that in the genus _Homo_, there are very unequal degrees of eugenesic
hybridity; but after having recognised that eugenesic hybridity does
exist between dog and wolf, hare and rabbit, goat and sheep, camel and
dromedary, I am permitted to say that it also exists between certain
races of men.

Among the facts quoted to prove the sterility of human cross-breeds,
some are of great value: and we shall examine them in the sequel;
others have been wrongly interpreted, while some are far from being
exact. I have already pointed out a cause of error which was not taken
into account, and which occurs frequently: it is the change of climate
which alone is capable of sterilising a race transplanted into the
midst of another race. Before attributing a defect of fecundity to
the mixed descendants of an immigrant race, we must see whether in
the same country the individuals of this race are more prolific in
their direct alliances. It is known, for instance, that the Mamelukes,
originating from the region of the Caucasus, have never taken root
in Egypt, where, nevertheless, from 1250, the epoch of their advent,
until 1811, the period of their extermination, their caste has always
formed a notable part of the population. They could only maintain
themselves by reinforcements which they annually received from the
native country, and though not half a century has elapsed since the
great massacre of Cairo, there remains no trace of them on the borders
of the Nile. Such being the fact, it was concluded therefrom, that the
descendants of the Mamelukes and the Egyptians were hybrids of little
or no fecundity. Gliddon has thus interpreted it, and Pouchet has
accepted that interpretation.[21] This, however, is not the real cause
of the sterility of the Mamelukes in Egypt, and Volney, who, towards
the end of the last century, has carefully observed and studied this
race, offers the following remarks on them: “Seeing that they have
existed in Egypt for centuries, one would be apt to believe that they
have reproduced themselves by the ordinary process of breeding; but if
their first settlement is a curious fact, their perpetuation is not
less so. For five centuries there have been Mamelukes in Egypt, yet not
one of them has left a subsisting line: there exists not one family
of the second generation, all their children perish in the first or
second generation. _The Ottomans are nearly in the same condition_,
and it is observed that they only preserve themselves from the same
fate by marrying indigenous females--what the _Mamelukes have always
disdained_. (The wives of the Mamelukes were, like their slaves,
imported from Georgia, Mongrelia, etc.) Let it now be explained why
well formed men, married to healthy women, cannot naturalise on the
borders of the Nile a blood formed at the foot of the Caucasus! We
are at the same time reminded that European plants equally refuse to
perpetuate their species in that locality.”[22] Despite the precision
of this passage, many Mamelukes no doubt took wives and numerous
concubines from the indigenous population. It is difficult to believe
that it could have been otherwise, and Gliddon had a right to say,
that if the offspring of the two races had been prolific, there would
inevitably have been produced in Egypt a mixed race. But the fact
revealed by Volney, which is perfectly authentic, still maintains its
force, namely, that the Mamelukes, by the simple fact of change of
country, had lost the power of engendering _with the women of their own
race_, a prolific posterity; hence, nothing proves that the sterility
of their offspring depended on the influence of hybridity, but rather
on the influence of climate.

It is not our purpose successively to review all particular
intermixtures produced in human races, or to determine the degree of
the fecundity of the hybrids resulting from it.

To demonstrate that eugenesic hybridity really exists, one instance
is sufficient, provided it be conclusive; and to find this example
we need not travel beyond our country. The population of France, as
we have amply established elsewhere, is descended from several very
distinct races, and presents everywhere the character of mixed races.
The pure representatives of the primitive races form a very small
minority; nevertheless, this hybrid nation, so far from decaying, in
accordance with the theory of Mr. Gobineau; far from presenting a
decreasing fecundity, according to some other authors, grows every day
in intelligence, prosperity, and numbers. Ever since the revolution
has broken the last obstacle which opposed themselves to the mixture
of races, and despite of the gigantic wars which during twenty-five
years mowed down the _élite_ of its male population, France has seen
the number of its inhabitants increase by more than one-third; this is
not a symptom of decay. Dr. Knox, in his curious essay on the Races
of Men (London, 1850), has thought proper to utter, in relation to
the French, some hard truths: and also some calumnies, which we shall
put to the account of his patriotism. Mr. Knox has accorded to the
French nation an increasing physical prosperity, and as this side of
the question is the only one which occupies us here, we might dispense
with any other testimony. That learned author thought what he said
about the French applied exclusively to the Celtic race; he supposed
that upon our soil there were nought but pure Celts, and that the other
ethnological elements have not in any degree modified the character
of the old Gallic race. I have refuted this assertion at some length
in my _Mémoire sur l’Ethnologie de la France_, and Dr. Knox,[23] in
praising in his own manner the Celtic race, has not perceived that
unconsciously, and contrary to his own system, he wrote the apology of
a strongly mixed race. But the partisans of this system will doubtless
say that, on the whole, the mixed Kimro-Celtic race, which now inhabits
France, does not subsist by itself; that the two parent races, the
Celts and the Kimris, one of which predominates in the north-east,
the other in the north-west, the south and the centre, persist,
almost pure, in their respective regions, and that the mixed race
only maintains itself by recruiting themselves incessantly in these
vivacious _foci_. My reply to this is, that the individuals perfectly
representing the Celtic or Kimri type are infinitely rarer than the
rest, even in the departments where history or observation demonstrates
that the influence of one of these races is altogether preponderant.
They are especially rare in the districts of the intermediary zone,
which I have termed Kimro-Celtic, and where the two chief races have
originally become intermixed in nearly equal proportions. Finally, in
these latter departments, where the intermixture has been strongest,
the population is neither less handsome, nor less robust or prolific
than in the others. As regards the vigour of the constitution, I
have consulted in the registers for recruiting the special list of
exemptions on account of infirmities, that is, for other physical
causes than stature. I have found that, other circumstances being
equal, there are as many infirm in 1000 conscripts in the purest
departments, as in the mixed districts. I cannot here dwell any longer
upon this proposition, of which I have given a rigorous demonstration
in my _Mémoire sur l’Ethnologie de la France_.

There remains now the question of fecundity. The causes which determine
the increase or the decay of a population are so multifarious, and for
the most part so foreign to ethnological influences, that we cannot
without committing grave errors, estimate the degree of fecundity of
different races, in comparing for each of them, the number of births
and deaths. It appears, nevertheless, very probable that all the races
are not equally prolific, and the mind easily perceives that there must
be between them notable differences. It is, therefore, unnecessary
that in order a mixture should be eugenesic the fecundity of the
cross-breed should be _absolutely equal_ to that of individuals of
pure blood. Had it been demonstrated by strict numbers, that a mixed
race, by the simple fact of intermixture breeds less rapidly than the
two parent races, and were it demonstrated that it presents a greater
number of cases of sporadic sterility, it would by no means result
from it that this mixed race is incapable of maintaining itself and
increasing by itself. The intermixture would cease to be eugenesic if
the fact of sterility became sufficiently general to render the births
diminishing with every new generation, so that at length the gaps
caused by death could no longer be filled and the race would prove
inevitably destined, sooner or later, to become extinct. Thus, even
if it were demonstrated that the offspring of an intermixture between
Celts and Kimris are somewhat less prolific than the ancestors of the
pure races, and that the mixed populations increased less rapidly than
the others; the Kimro-Celtic hybridity would not on that account cease
to be eugenesic, provided the _relative_ sterility did not descend
beneath the degree when the sterility becomes _absolute_, that is to
say, when the fecundity becomes insufficient. But the departments in
which history and ethnology prove that the intermixture has been pushed
to the extreme point, the population far from having diminished, has
increased since the revolution, namely, since the establishment of
new territorial divisions, as rapidly as in the rest of France, and
it appears to me as certain that the intermixture of Kimris and Celts
either between themselves, or with the Romans and Germans, constitute
examples of eugenesic hybridity.

We must, however, take care not to imitate the paradoxical reasoning
of our adversaries, and because some crossings of _certain_ races are
eugenesic, to conclude, _à priori_, that _all_ the other intermixtures
are equally so. The study of hybridity in birds and quadrupeds has
taught us that we can never know with certainty, before making the
experiment, what will be the result of crossing. Neither must we forget
that the ethnological facts which have served us as examples apply to
the intermixture of races distinct, no doubt, but nearly related in
many respects. The mixture of races more distant from each other, is
it equally prolific, and are the descendants eugenesic? This is the
question we now intend to examine.



SECTION III.

EXAMPLES TENDING TO PROVE THAT THE INTERMIXTURE OF CERTAIN RACES OF MEN
ARE NOT EUGENESIC.


In the first part of this essay we have endeavoured to establish that
certain human cross-breeds possess an unlimited fecundity, both in
their direct alliances and with either of the parent races, whence we
have inferred that eugenesic hybridity really exists in mankind.

We intend now to investigate the results of certain intermixtures more
disparate, and review a number of facts tending to the conclusion that
all human cross-breeds are not eugenesic.

Let us observe at the outset, how far the phenomena of eugenesic or
non-eugenesic hybridity may affect the solution of the great question
pending between the Monogenists and the Polygenists.

What in animals in general, characterises the eugenesic hybridity,
is the unlimited fecundity of mongrels of the first degree between
themselves. It is by no means necessary that the parent species should
be as prolific in their crossings as in their direct unions, nor that
the mongrels should be as productive as their parents, as large, as
strong, and as long-lived, etc. Supposing, for instance, that the
she-wolf conceives with more difficulty with the mastiff than with her
proper mate; supposing even that this crossing is only efficacious by
way of exception; that it succeeds only once out of ten, instead of
succeeding constantly as it occurs in animals of the same species;
it would be sufficient, if in this tenth case the mongrels are very
prolific to pronounce the crossing eugenesic. Supposing also, that the
hybrid wolf-dogs of the first degree produced only litters of about
two or three, that is to say, only half the number usually produced
by she-wolves and bitches, the result would be that this intermediate
race would breed less rapidly by half than the pure species; but,
provided the productiveness of the mongrels does not descend below the
degree necessary for the preservation of the species, and provided it
can repair the loss at every generation, the crossing would still be
eugenesic, nor would it cease being so, even if the breed were only
half as strong as their parents, and only half as long-lived.

When, therefore, a physiologist wishes to demonstrate the existence of
that degree of hybridity which we have termed eugenesic, he selects
two perfectly recognised distinct species of animals, crosses them,
studies their breeds, and if he finds that they are indefinitely
prolific, it is sufficient for him to affirm the existence of eugenesic
hybridity--that is to say, that the physiological definition of
the _species_ is unacceptable. But when a zoologist, in studying
two races of animals, the specific determination of which is still
contested, endeavours to establish that these two races are merely
varieties of the same species, and when in order to weaken the
differential anatomical characters pointed out by his adversaries, he
invokes the physiological analogy exhibited by intermixture, we have
a right to expect more than a partial demonstration. We must first
prove that the intermixture of the two races constitutes a case of
eugenesic hybridity; for if the cross-breed are not between themselves
indefinitely prolific, it is certain that the two races are not of the
same species. This first point being established, would not yet lead
to any conclusion, since animals of different species may engender
eugenesic breeds. He must, therefore, completely analyse all the
phenomena of reproduction and prove that they are exactly the same in
the parent races and in the hybrid race. It is not merely the sexual
analogy but the sexual identity which must be rendered evident; for
from his point of view, it is not sufficient that the two races in
question should be homogenesic in some degree, they must be entirely
homogeneous, and the least genital difference becomes an argument
against the proposition he sustains. If the cross-breed, though
very prolific, are less so than their parents, or less productive
in their crossings than their direct alliances; or, finally, if the
investigation of these crossings exhibits any functional inequality,
it might become very probable that the two races do not belong to the
same species. Such would also be the case if the cross-breed were less
strong and vivacious than the individuals of the pure race, or if one
of the crossings is more productive than the inverse crossing, as is
observed in certain cases of hybridity, which approach more or less of
_unilateral hybridity_. The existence of one of these phenomena might
prove that the two races are not homogeneous, and might lead us to
think that they are not of the same species.

The monogenists, who have based the demonstration of the unity of the
human species upon the physiological character of the prolificacy of
the cross-breeds, have not taken into account these elements. They have
confined themselves to the assertions that all human races can produce
cross-breeds, and that all these breeds are prolific. Now, admitting
for a moment that these assertions are exact, the conclusion they have
drawn from them is still contestable, until they can demonstrate that
the study of these cross-breeds reveals no genital inequality between
the parent races.

But what becomes of their argumentation, if it be proved that all
intermixtures are not eugenistic, that is to say, that certain
mongrels are not between themselves indefinitely prolific; that other
cross-breeds become sterile in the first generation; and, finally,
that certain races are so little homogenesic, that the birth of
cross-breeds of the first degree is more or less exceptional? If one
of these propositions can be effectually established, the monogenists
would have little cause to congratulate themselves for having appealed
to physiology. They would, on the contrary, have furnished their
adversaries with deadly weapons, and their doctrine would be demolished
on the battle field they have themselves chosen.

The facts I intend to exhibit tend to prove that it was a great
error to consider all intermixtures of men as eugenesic. Obliged as
I am to refer to testimonies which, perhaps, do not always exhibit a
desirable precision, some doubts may hover over my conclusion; this
much, however, will result from this sketch, that the examination of
the laws of hybridity is far from being favourable to the doctrine of
monogenists.

We shall study the cross-breeds both in relation to their fecundity
and their physical and moral validity; for, from our point of view, it
is sufficient to prove that certain cross-breeds are inferior to the
parent races, as regards longevity, vigour, health, and intelligence,
to render it very probable that the two races are not of the same
species.

When a monogenist is called upon to demonstrate that all human
intermixtures are eugenesic, the first example which he ordinarily
cites is that of the Mulattoes in America, the issue of the union of
European colonists and African negresses. This example, which has for
a long time been considered as decisive, might not be without a reply;
for there exist races differing much more from us than the races of the
western coast of Africa; but the question here is, whether it be quite
true that all American Mulattoes are eugenesic.

We meet, first, with this fact, namely, the union of the Negro with a
white woman is frequently sterile, whilst that of a white man with a
negress is perfectly fecund. This might tend to establish between these
two races a species of hybridity analogous to that existing between
goats and sheep, which we have termed _unilateral hybridity_. Professor
Serres, fully alive to the gravity of this fact has given the following
explanation: “One of the characters of the Ethiopian race[24] consists
in the length of the penis compared with that of the Caucasian race.
This dimension coincides with the length of the uterine canal in the
Ethiopian female, and both have their cause in the form of the pelvis
in the Negro race. There results from this physical disposition, that
the union of the Caucasian man with an Ethiopian woman is easy and
without any inconvenience for the latter. The case is different in the
union of the Ethiopian with a Caucasian woman, who suffers in the act,
the neck of the uterus is pressed against the sacrum, so that the act
of reproduction is not merely painful, but _frequently non-productive_.”

This explanation, though based upon an anatomical character perfectly
correct, is yet far from being satisfactory; but we have quoted it here
to show that one of the two most eminent monogenists of our epoch has
admitted as a perfectly authentic fact, that the union of Caucasian
women with Negroes is very frequently non-productive.

Mr. Theodore Waitz, author of a scientific treatise on Anthropology
(the first volume is entirely devoted to the study of general
doctrines), has carefully examined the question of the intermixture of
races, and endeavoured to reconcile the results of these crossings with
the system of monogenists. He was, nevertheless, obliged to admit, from
the numerous documents collected, that in many cases the cross-breeds
are feebly constituted, Thus, in Senegal the offspring of the Foulahs
and the Negroes are handsome and more intelligent than the latter, but
there are amongst them many stammerers, blind, hunchbacks, and idiots.
The children of Arabs and the women of Darfour are debilitated and
little vivacious, and the author adds _that the children of a European
woman and a Negro are rarely vigorous_.[25]

It seems thus to result from these various investigations, that the
union between the Negro and a white woman is little productive, and
that their offspring is neither vigorous nor vivacious. Nevertheless,
we admit this conclusion with some reserve, because the avowed unions
of Negroes with white women are comparatively rare, and consequently
the authors who have spoken of them could only have their inferences
upon a few facts. The inverse intermixture between the white man and
the negress is, on the contrary, very frequent, and as prolific in the
first generation as in the direct alliances between individuals of the
same race.

It is equally known that Mulattoes and Mulatresses are very prolific
in their recrossings with the parent races. The great number of
individuals of every shade, designated by the name Quadroon,
Quinterons, Tercerons, Griffes, Marabouts, Cabres, etc., and by
the collective name of _mixed blood_, proves it. The hybridity of
Whites and Negroes is thus, at least, equal to what we described
in animals by the name of _paragenesic hybridity_. The question now
arises, whether it be eugenesic, that is to say, whether Mulattoes
and Mulatresses of the first degree are indefinitely prolific between
themselves.

It would be imprudent to restrict ourselves to superficial
observations, though positive observations are with difficulty
collected. Mulattoes of the first degree are not a well defined and
circumscribed caste, like the whites and negroes of pure blood.
Mulatresses prefer to unite themselves with the white or with mestizoes
whiter than themselves. Mulattoes are thus frequently obliged to
intermix with either pure negresses, or with mulatresses issued from
a recrossing with the Negro race. There are, nevertheless, a goodly
number of unions between the mestizos of the first degree; but the
individuals issued from these unions have no longer the same chances
of intermarrying as those of the first generation. The number of
individuals of the first degree must, therefore, rapidly decrease
from generation to generation, and the result is, that even if these
cross-breeds were indefinitely prolific between themselves, we could
only, by way of exception, find mulattoes issued in a direct line to
the third or fourth generation, from the direct and exclusive union of
mestizoes of the first degree.

To give to the question at issue a rigorous solution, it is necessary
to study during several generations a population exclusively composed
of mulattoes of the _first degree_. This experience can never be
obtained. We find, indeed, at Hayti, a population nearly composed of
coloured individuals. But these coloured men are mestizos of every
shade, and if this hybrid nation were to subsist in perfect prosperity
during several generations, the unlimited prolifickness of mestizos of
the first degree between themselves would not thereby be demonstrated.

We are, then, in default of a physiological experimentation analogous
to what the monogenists require, in attempting to prove that the
crossing of two species of animals is or is not eugenesic, reduced to
the impressions, or rather appreciation of observers. Most of these
appreciations can only be approximatives wanting a fixed basis. It is
absolutely unknown what is the relative proportion of mulattoes of the
first degree who intermarry between themselves, and such who intermix
with other mestizos, or with individuals of a pure race; nor can we
know what, in a given population, should be the normal proportion of
these mulattos if they were perfectly prolific _between themselves_.
It then becomes very difficult to say whether the number of mulattoes
issued in a direct line from mestizos of the first degree is equal to
the normal proportion, or inferior to it; so that, if they are but
little inferior to their parents in regard to fecundity, the fact
might pass unobserved. The relative sterility of these breeds would
only become evident when it approaches absolute sterility. Between
this degree of prolifickness and perfect fecundity there are many
intermediate degrees, difficult to recognise, and still more difficult
to prove.

The first French observer who has denied the prolifickness of mulattoes
is M. Jacquinot, author of the zoological part of the _Voyage to the
South Pole and Oceania_. We shall reproduce here some passages from
that work. After having spoken of the cross-breeds of animals, M.
Jacquinot continues in the following terms:[26]

“It is the same in the human genus. There the species are very
approximating, and, according to the principles just laid down,
‘that the more species are approximating the greater the chance of
fecundity,’ the mestizos issuing from the intermixture enjoy a certain
degree of prolifickness which, however, as in animals, is not absolute.
Like the latter, they return to the mother’s species in allying
themselves with them; and, independently of their relative fecundity,
new individuals are constantly produced by the union of the parent
races.

“On observing in our colonies that a population of mulattos is
constantly produced and renewed, their fecundity was not doubted; yet
it is very limited. On the one hand the mulattos disappear every moment
in one or the other of the parent races, and if their unions were
constantly between themselves, they would not be long before becoming
extinct....

“In a colony, that is to say in an island, or a part of a continent of
limited extent peopled by Negroes and white men for some centuries, the
greater part of the population should be composed of mulattoes....

“But it is not so, and whatever be the number of mulattoes in the
colonies, the predominance of the Negro and Caucasian species is not
less certain.... There is, besides, a fact known to persons inhabiting
the colonies, that the white women and the negresses are very prolific,
which is not the case with the mulatresses.

“We believe to be the first who has pointed out the sterility in human
cross-breeds. We have not been able to collect precise and positive
observations based on figures; but we think that the figures will be
soon forthcoming now that the attention of observers is drawn to the
subject.”

The avowal which terminates this passage, much diminishes its
importance. M. Jacquinot, not having sojourned long in the various
countries he visited, was only able to collect superficial observations
in regard to a question which requires long and minute researches. But
Mr. Nott, one of the most eminent anthropologists of America, was in a
better condition to study this subject.

Living in a country where the Caucasian and Ethiopian races are
much mixed, and enabled by his profession as a physician to make
his observations on a great number of individuals, he arrived at
conclusions similar to those of M. Jacquinot. His first essay on
hybridity appeared in 1842. It was but a short paper, which attracted
but little notice, and which we have not been able to consult, no copy
of it being in the Paris library. M. Jacquinot, whose work appeared
in 1846, had certainly no knowledge of this essay, his observations
having been made in 1836-40, before M. Nott had published his own. We
are not, however, engaged here to discuss the question of priority, we
state merely the fact that two distinguished observers studying the
same subject, unknown to each other, arrived at the same conclusions
relating to the sterility of Mulattoes.

In his essay of 1812, Dr. Nott maintained the following propositions,
which we extract from a subsequent publication.[27]

1. That _Mulattoes_ are the shortest lived of any class of the human
race.

2. That _Mulattoes_ are intermediate in intelligence between the blacks
and the whites.

3. That they are less capable of undergoing fatigue and hardships than
either the blacks or whites.

4. That the _Mulatto-women_ are peculiarly delicate, and subject to a
variety of chronic diseases. That they are bad breeders, bad nurses,
liable to abortions, and that their children generally die young.

5. That when _Mulattoes_ intermarry, they are less prolific than when
crossed on the parent stock.

6. That when a _Negro_ man married a white woman, the offspring partook
more largely of the Negro type than when the reverse connection had
effect.

7. That Mulattoes, like Negroes, although unacclimated, enjoy
extraordinary exemption from yellow-fever when brought to Charleston,
Savannah, Mobile, or New Orleans.

The propositions, 1, 3, 4, and 5, are the only ones connected with
our subject. They confirm, and even enhance, in certain respects, M.
Jacquinot’s assertions, yet are they contested, and Dr. Nott himself
has found it necessary to restrict their application. He had made his
observations in South Carolina where he found the Mulattoes little
prolific and short-lived. Having changed his residence, he obtained
different results. At Mobile, New Orleans, Pensacola, towns on the Gulf
of Mexico, he found among the Mulattoes many instances of manifest
longevity and prolificacy, not merely in their crossed but in their
direct alliances. What was the cause of this difference? Dr. Nott
inquired whether the difference in the results might not depend upon
the difference in the ethnological elements in the crossing. All
the Europeans who have colonised America did not belong to the same
race. The Caucasians, as is well known, are naturally divided in two
groups:--the light-haired race, with grey or blue eyes, a white skin;
and the brown races, with a deeper complexion and brown or black hair.
The first occupy Northern Europe; the second, Southern Europe. There is
thus a little less disparity, and a little more affinity between the
Europeans of the South and the Negroes, than between the latter and the
Northern Europeans, so that when we hear that intermixture succeeds
better in the first than in the second case, it should not surprise us.
But South Carolina, where the Mulattoes get on so indifferently, has
been colonised by the Anglo-Saxons; whilst the shores of the Gulf of
Mexico, where the Mulattoes are more prospering, have been colonised
by the French (Louisiana) and by the Spaniards (Florida). Such is the
explanation offered by Dr. Nott. Still in maintaining his conclusions
on the issues of Negro women, and men of the Germanic race, he thinks
that they are not applicable to the Mulattoes whose parents belong to a
Caucasian race more or less dark in complexion. Analogous differences
are often observed in animals in such crossings when they are placed
in connections with species more or less approximate. Before, however,
accepting Dr. Nott’s explanation, it may be as well to examine whether
the fact may not be differently explained.

South Carolina, comprised between 32° and 35° N. lat., is situated
beyond the zone where the African Negroes live: New Orleans, Mobile,
and Pensacola are situated nearer the tropics, between the 30° and
31°, and we find in Africa, in Northern Sahara, south of Algiers, some
tribes of Negroes who have lived in that latitude from time immemorial.
Though the climate does not altogether depend on latitude, it may be
readily believed that the Negroes become sooner acclimated upon the
shores of the Gulf of Mexico than in the more northern regions. But
it is known that men transplanted into climates differing much from
that in which their race thrives may, by this simple fact, greatly
lose their fecundity. It is not always so, but considering that it
does happen, we have a right to ask whether the difference pointed out
by Dr. Nott between the Mulattoes of South Carolina, and those of the
region of the Gulf may not be owing to this cause.

This interpretation is, however, in opposition to two orders of facts.
On the one hand, the Negroes and Negresses of South Carolina are
perfectly prolific between themselves.[28] The climate of that country
has not weakened their generative powers, and there is no reason why,
by their alliances with a white race acclimated in that part, there
should he produced an offspring less acclimated than their parents. The
diminished vitality and fecundity can, therefore, not be attributed to
the influence of the media in which they are brought up.

On the other hand, a result similar to that mentioned by Nott, as
regards South Carolina, seems to have been obtained in Jamaica under
the 18°, corresponding nearly to the latitude of Senegal and Timbuctoo.
This island is situated south of Cuba, Hayti, and Porto Rico, where
Negroes and Mulattoes thrive, but these islands have been colonised by
the French and the Spaniards, whilst Jamaica is an _English_ colony.[29]

The Mulattoes of Jamaica have thus the same ethnologic origin as those
of Carolina; and the following remarks from the _History of Jamaica_,
by Long, entirely confirm Nott’s opinion.[30]

“The Mulattoes of Jamaica,” says Long, “are generally well
proportioned, and the Mulatto women have fine features, and seem to
have more of the White than of the Negro in their blood. Some of
them have married women of their own colour, but these marriages are
generally sterile. They seem in this respect to resemble certain mules,
being less capable of producing between themselves than with the
Whites or Blacks. Some instances may possibly have occurred, where,
upon the intermarriage of two Mulattoes, the woman has borne children,
which children have grown to maturity; _but I never heard of such an
instance_.

“Those Mulattoes of Jamaica, of which I speak, have married young,
have received some education, and are distinguished by their chaste
and regular conduct. The observations made regarding them have a great
degree of certainty. They do not breed, though there is nothing to
indicate that they would not be prolific by intermarrying either with
the Blacks or Whites.

“In searching for facts contrary to this opinion, it is requisite to
discard the suspicion that the Mulatress has had intercourse with any
other man than her Mulatto husband, and there would still remain the
question, whether the son of a Mulatto, married to the daughter of two
other Mulattoes, is capable of producing and forming a durable race.”

Such a grave fact could not be allowed to pass unchallenged.
Professor Waitz, much embarrassed by it, could only oppose to it a
passage extracted from a work published in 1845 by Lewis, _On the
Negroes in the West Indies_. “Lewis,” says Waitz (_Anthropologie der
Naturvölker_), “expressly denies the sterility of the Mulattoes of
Jamaica in their marriages between themselves, and observes, that they
are as prolific as the Blacks and Whites, but that they are for the
most part flabby and weak, and their children have little vitality.”

Long said he knew of no instance where the children of Mulattoes
arrived at maturity. To refute this assertion, known instances
should have been cited. But Lewis neglects doing so.[31] He says,
on the contrary, that the children, from similar marriages, possess
little vitality. Though this expression does not necessarily imply
the impossibility of arriving at adult age, it tends at least to the
conclusion that the children have little chance to reach it; and when
we consider that the preceding passage was intended to refute Long’s
assertions, it is surprising how little satisfies Professor Waitz. At
any rate, it proves that he could find no other positive document in
opposition to the fact mentioned by Long.

This is, perhaps, no reason for accepting without reserve the
opinions of Dr. Nott. Before giving a definite judgment, we must
wait for further numerous, authentic, and scientific observations.
Nevertheless, it must be remarked, that the indefinite fecundity of
Mulattoes had been admitted as an axiom, which it was thought there was
no necessity of disproving. It was sufficient to say there are many
Mulattoes, without investigating whether they maintain themselves,
or by continuous intermixture with the parent stocks. The first who
wished to inquire more closely has, by his observations, been led to
results opposed to general opinion. To these observations, presenting
apparently the guarantee of authenticity, positive observation should
be opposed; and it is requisite that the latter should be specially
collected in countries where the _Germanic_ race has intermarried
with the Negro race of Western Africa. The investigations which might
be made in the French, Spanish, or Portuguese colonies would have no
direct application.

The authors, moreover, we have cited, are far from being the only ones
who have denied the fecundity of the Mulattoes in the West Indies.
Van Amringe and Hamilton Smith assert, that without a reunion with
the parent stocks the Mulattoes would soon become extinct. Day says
that Mulattoes are rarely prolific between themselves; and Waitz,
somewhat shaken by these testimonies, adds in a note, “The sterility
of Mulattoes, when it is complete, may be compared with that fact
recognised by Wirgman in plants, that the hybrids of intermediate types
between the two parent stocks are sterile, whilst those resembling
one or the other species are prolific.”[32] From these facts and
testimonies there seems to result--1. That the Mulattoes of the
Germanic and Ethiopian races possess little prolificacy: 2. That they
are inferior in this respect to the Mulattoes born by the intercourse
of Negro women and men belonging to the more or less dark complexioned
Caucasian races.

Mulattoes of the latter kind exist in large numbers in the greater part
of the Antilles, South America, Central America, Mexico, Mauritius,
Bourbon, and Senegal. All these countries have been colonised by the
French, Spaniards, or Portuguese. The Mulattoes born there are fecund
in their intermixture with the parent stock, as the Mulattoes of
Germanic origin; they are also prolific between themselves, at least
in the first generation. Are they equally prolific in their direct
alliances as in their mixed ones? Are their children arriving at
maturity as the others? And finally, when these children intermarry,
are they and their descendants prolific? These questions are yet
unanswered. They can only be solved after a long series of observations
collected by men of science; not by travellers who view the populations
superficially, but by close observers, and principally by physicians
resident in these localities. In the mean while, here is another
passage from the work of Prof. Waitz, quoted by him from Seemann.[33]
“The Mulattoes of the Negroes and Whites at Panamá are prolific between
themselves, but their children are brought up with difficulty; whilst
the families of the pure races produce less children, which however
arrive at maturity.” The Europeans of Panamá are of Spanish origin. The
prolifickness of the Mulattoes of the first degree is clearly indicated
in this passage, but doubts may be entertained as to the fecundity of
their descendants. The intermixtures of Negroes and Europeans are not
the only ones the results of which exhibit defects to the observers.
“The Mulattoes,” says M. Boudin,[34] “are very often inferior to the
two parent stocks, both in vitality, intelligence, or morality. Thus
the Mulattoes of Pondicherry, known by the name of Topas, exhibit a
mortality not only more considerable than that of the Indians, but
greater than the Europeans, though the latter are considerably shorter
lived in India than in Europe. Positive documents on this point have
been published in the _Revue Coloniale_. So much as to the vitality.

“In Java, the Mulattoes of the Dutch and Malays are so little
intelligent that they could never be employed as functionaries. All
Dutch historians are agreed upon this point. This much for their
intelligence.

“The Mulattoes of Negroes and Indians, known by the name of _Zambos_
in Peru and Nicaragua, form the worst class of citizens. They compose
four-fifths of the prison population. This fact, already mentioned by
Tschudi,[35] has recently been confirmed by Squier. So much as regards
morality.

“There are, however, certain physical qualities which may be acquired
by the intermixture of races. Such are pathological immunities. The
Mulattoes of the West Indies are, like the Negroes, exempt from the
yellow fever.”

The fecundity of Mulattoes is not touched in this passage, not having
been the subject of discussion. The question merely was whether the
prevalent opinion, that intermixture of improved races physically,
intellectually, and morally, was in accordance with well observed
facts. Hence, M. Boudin confined his observations to the limited
intelligence exhibited by the Mulattoes issued from the union of the
Dutch of Java with the Malay women. But in his _Treatise on Medical
Geography_,[36] he expresses, with regard to the Mulattoes, an opinion
that they are not productive beyond the third generation. This fact,
announced by Dr. Yvan, which is confirmed by other testimonies, has not
been contested. Waitz borrows from Graf Görtz some particulars which
are not without interest.

“The Lipplappen,” he says (this is the name of the Mulattoes of Java),
“do not breed beyond the third generation. Flabby and weakly, they
become developed up to the fifteenth year, when the development is
arrested. At the third generation, girls only are born, which are
sterile.[37] This phase of sterility is very curious, and deserves well
the attention of physiologists.”

It is, however, necessary to inquire whether the sterility of the
Lipplappen depends upon intermixture or upon other causes. The climate
of the islands of the Sunda straits is very injurious to Europeans.
The Dutch do not perpetuate their race at Batavia; and even without
intermarrying with the natives they become sometimes sterile at the
second generation.[38] The sterility of the natives may, then, be
attributed to the climate. These results, moreover prove, from a
verbal communication of Dr. Yvan to M. de Quatrefages, that in other
Dutch colonies of the Great Indian Archipelago, the Mulattoes are
prolific.[39] It is thus not demonstrated that the sterility of the
Lipplappen is the result of their hybridity.

M. de Quatrefages, in order to explain the difference of results
produced by the intermixture of the Dutch and the Malays at Java, and
other Dutch colonies, supposes that this difference is due to the
influence of mediums. This is possible; but there are other influences
which must be taken into account, namely, the numerical proportion
of either of the two races who intermarry. Where the Europeans are
few in number, the Mulattoes of the first degree are also very few;
those who intermarry between themselves are still less numerous, and
the rest ally themselves with the parent stock, chiefly with the
indigenous race, which is preponderating. Where, on the contrary,
the European population is considerable, the Mulattoes of the first
degree are sufficiently numerous to constitute a sort of intermediate
caste, which, without altogether escaping a recrossing, contract
nearly all their alliances with their equals.[40] In the first case,
most individuals of mixed blood approximate more to the indigenous
race than to the foreign; that is to say, that the Mulattoes of the
second, third degree, etc., are much more numerous than the Mulattoes
of the first degree. But in proportion as a recrossing is effected,
the influence of hybridity diminishes, and becomes effaced. In the
second case, on the contrary, the greater part of the Mulattoes are
of the first degree,[41] and, much more than the rest, subject to the
influence of hybridity; and if it be true that hybridity causes a
diminution of fecundity, it is easily understood that the prolificness
must vary according to the relative proportion of the two races. Now,
Batavia is the great centre of the population of the India Archipelago;
there the Europeans are most numerous; it is chiefly there that the
Lipplappen form a distinct class, and it is precisely there that
their defective prolificness is found. I do not pretend to say that
this interpretation is perfectly correct; I merely advance it as an
hypothesis to be verified. Here, however, we have a fact which may
enhance its value. I borrow it from the work of Prof. Waitz. It is
known that a large number of Chinese are found in the eastern and
western isles of the Indian Archipelago. They are relatively less
numerous in Java and Sumatra, where their commerce cannot sustain the
competition with the Dutch. “The descendants of the Chinese and the
Malay women in the eastern islands of the Indian Archipelago,” says
Waitz, “soon become extinct; whilst at Java, _where the pure Chinese
are few in number_. The Malay-Chinese Mulattoes amount to 200,000.”[42]

If the defective fecundity of the Lipplappen of Java is due to the
deleterious influence of climate, it is very difficult to attribute
the great prolificness of the Malay-Chinese to the benignity of
the same climate. Moreover, the more eastern islands, where the
latter Mulattoes do not thrive, are more unhealthy than Java. There
seems, therefore to result, from the facts quoted by Waitz, that the
Malay-Chinese thrive where the Chinese are few in number, and that
they decay where the Chinese are numerous; that is to say, that the
fecundity of the hybrid population augments in proportion as the
conditions favourable to a return crossing with the Malay race are
present. This amounts to the same thing, namely, that the Mulattoes of
the second, third, and fourth degree are more prolific than those of
the first, which certainly corresponds with the laws of hybridity among
animals. These facts, however, require to be verified and completed
before they can serve as a basis to arrive at a definite conclusion.[43]

These examples of the Mulattoes of Malasia, which we accept with
reserve, tend to demonstrate that the results of intermixture do not
exclusively depend on the degree of proximity of race; for there
is certainly a less zoological distance between the Chinese and
the Malays, and between the Malays and the Dutch, than between the
African Negroes and the South Europeans. Yet the Mulattoes of the
French, Portuguese, and Spanish colonies seem gifted with a much
greater prolificacy than the Dutch or Chinese Mulattoes of Malasia.
It is besides known that in Mexico and South America the union of the
indigenous population between the Portuguese or the Spaniards has,
in many localities, produced Mulattoes, the race of which seems to
perpetuate itself.[44]

In investigating hybridity in animals, we have found that
homœogenesis is not always exactly proportional to the degree
of proximity of species; we would especially point out that the
_chabeins_, or hybrids of the goat and the sheep, are superior to the
mules of the ass and the mare, though there is a greater difference
between goats and sheep than between the horse and the ass.[45] It is
not less true that in general, though with some exceptions, the results
of intermixture are more defective in proportion as the species are
more distant from each other. This leads us to study human hybridity in
such regions where the most elevated races have come into contact with
the most inferior races. What are the two races forming the extremes of
the human species? Several English authors express the conviction that
the Anglo-Saxon, or rather the Germanic race, to which they belong, is
the first race of humanity. M. Alex. Harvey is even pleased to believe
that Providence has created it to rule all the rest.[46] Patriotism
is a virtue which is entitled to our esteem. We shall, therefore, not
attempt diminishing the satisfaction of our allies across the straits,
and we shall, at any rate, acknowledge that the race which has produced
a Leibnitz and a Newton is inferior to none.

At the extremity of the world, and nearly at the antipodes of Great
Britain, the English have been for more than half a century in contact
with the Melanesian races, and specially with the Australians and
Tasmanians. The relative degree of inferiority between these latter
races, which differ sensibly in their physical character, may be
open to discussion.[47] It is, however, generally admitted that they
are inferior at least to all other races who have come in permanent
contact with Europeans. The Hottentot race, which has long been
considered to occupy the lowest degree, is evidently superior to them.
The Hottentots, though refractory to education, have, at least, shown
some degree of improvability, while the Australians seem absolutely
incorrigible savages. The English have made the most persevering
attempts to instruct them, but without any success. As they could not
succeed with the adult population, they tried it with children of a
tender age, and educated them with European children in orphan asylums;
they have there learned to mumble some prayers, even to read and write;
but, with approaching puberty, the young pupils succumbed to their
savage instincts, and escaped into the woods to live again with their
parents whom they had never known. At one time young Australians were
transported to England, and confided to the Moravian brothers, who
neglected no cares to improve them. “They have returned as brutish
as they were before,” says M. Garnat; “a proprietor of a farm in the
interior assured me, that he could never succeed to employ them in the
most simple agricultural labour.”[48]

What is known of the Tasmanians scarcely permits us to consider them
superior to the Australians. It must, however, be admitted that those
unfortunate islanders of Van Diemen’s Land have not been so much
attended to as the Australians. The English, so humane and patient as
regards the latter, have committed upon the Tasmanian race, and that
in the nineteenth century, execrable atrocities a hundred times less
excusable than the hitherto unrivalled crimes of which the Spaniards
were guilty in the fifteenth century in the Antilles.

These atrocities have terminated in a regular extermination,[49]
caused, say the optimists, by the absolute unsociability of the
Tasmanians.[50] This is not, in our opinion, a mitigatory circumstance,
but from all these facts there results evidently, that, of all human
beings, the Tasmanians are, or rather were, with the Australians,
nearest to the brutal condition.

The investigation of the results obtained from the intermixture of
Anglo-Saxons with these inferior races, may give us an idea what the
crossing between the two most disparate branches of the human family
may produce.

M. Omalius d’Halloy, President of the Belgian Senate, a venerable
scholar, as well known for his geological as for his anthropological
works, thus concludes the seventh chapter of his _Treatise on the
Races of Man_: “It is remarkable that, though a considerable number of
Europeans now inhabit the same countries as the Andamenes, no mention
is made of the existence of hybrids resulting front their union.”[51]
Under the name of Andamenes, d’Halloy comprises the Australians,
Tasmanians, and all the blacks with woolly hair of Melanesia and
Malasia.

It may, then, be inferred from this passage, either that the Europeans
established in these countries have no connection with the native
black women, which appears inadmissible, as we shall presently show,
or that the intermixture between the two races is perfectly sterile.
This latter assertion is, however, not altogether correct. True it is
that the greater part of travellers make no mention whatever of hybrids
of Melanesia; it is equally true that they are very rare, but still
there exist some. Thus Quoy and Gaymard have seen _one_ hybrid of an
European and a Tasmanian woman.[52] Mr. Gliddon, who unfortunately does
not cite the source from which he has drawn his information, announces
that until the year 1835, when the Tasmanians were exterminated, there
were only known, in the whole of Tasmania, two adult Mulattoes.[53]
This indicates either that few were born, or that they died at an early
age, for the colony, founded in 1803 by a population at first almost
_exclusively masculine_, had, in a few years, considerably increased
by the arrival of convicts and free settlers, nearly all males. Mr.
Jacquinot, after having announced that there were no hybrids in
Australia, adds, “In Hobart Town, and in all Tasmania, there are no
hybrids either.”[54] No other author has, to our knowledge, mentioned
Tasmanian hybrids.

The intermixture of the English with the native women of Australia
has not been more productive. “There are scarcely,” says Jacquinot,
“any Mulattoes of Australians and English mentioned.” This absence
of Mulattoes between two peoples living in contact on the same soil,
proves incontestably the difference of species. It may also be noticed
that if such cross-breeds really existed, they would be easily
recognised.[55] Mr. Lesson, who lived about two months in Sydney and
its environs, and who made several excursions among the natives,
mentions only one cross-breed, the offspring of a white man and the
wife of a chief named Bongari.[56] Cunningham, a great defender of the
Australian race--which, by the way, has finished by killing, and it
is even said eating him--has written two volumes on New South Wales,
in which neither directly nor indirectly is there mention made of
more than one single Mulatto, and it happens that this single Mulatto
is precisely the same of whom Mr. Lesson speaks.[57] No statistical
writer, nor any historian, enumerates cross-breeds among the Australian
population. No where, nevertheless, are the classes of society more
numerous and more distinct. The officials, the colonists born in
Europe, the colonists born in Australia, the convicts, the emancipated,
the descendants of convicts, etc.; form as many classes envious of
and despising each other, they dispute their respective privileges,
and give each other more or less picturesque nick names. There are
sterlings, currencies,[58] the legitimate, the illegitimate,[59] the
pure Merinos, the convicts, the titled, the untitled, the canaries, the
government men, the bushrangers, the emancipists,[60] and some other
classes of immigrants or convicts. In this rich vocabulary there is not
a single word to designate the Mulattoes. Yet in all countries where
races of different colours mix, the language of the locality contains
always distinct denominations for Mulattoes of various shades. Nothing
of the kind exists in Australia. There is even a class of white men,
the _legitimates_, which have also the name of _cross-breeds_.[61] This
word everywhere else would designate Mulattoes, in Australia it means
European convicts, it being thought impossible that the rare issue of
an intermixture between the two races should ever become a part of the
population.

It is, however, not merely in New South Wales that we are struck with
the paucity of cross-breeds between Europeans and Australians; Mr.
McGillivray mentions a similar fact as regards the port of Essingen, an
English colony of Northern Australia.[62]

We may, therefore, accept as an authenticated fact, that the
cross-breeds between Europeans and native women are very rare in
Australia, as they were in Tasmania when the Tasmanian race existed.

This fact is so much in opposition to the general opinion on
the intermixture of human races, that before attributing it to
physiological causes, we must inquire whether it is not owing to some
other causes.

We might be tempted, for instance, to suppose, that there was no
intermixture, and that the ugliness and dirty habits of the native
women bridled the sexual desire of the Europeans. This has been
advanced, not by travellers who have precisely asserted the contrary,
but by honest and sensible reasoners, whose refined taste revolted at
the aspect of the portraits and busts of the Australian women. It would
be a serious fact that a whole race should have such an irresistible
repugnance to another, for nature has only inspired with such a feeling
of repulsion beings of different species, and man is certainly of all
animals the least exclusive. Is there in our seaports a prostitute
sufficiently ugly and old to frighten the sailor? Is it not known that
the Hottentots, whose ugliness is proverbial, have intermixed with the
Europeans of South Africa? We must then set aside such a supposition,
which is not founded upon a correct knowledge of human nature. There
are, moreover, some documents, which induce us to believe that the
Europeans of Australia and Van Diemen’s Land have intermixed with the
native women.

According to Malte-Brun the population of the colony of

Sydney amounted in 1821 to 37,068 individuals, thus distributed.[63]

  Free settlers, or liberated convicts, men      12,608
       ”          ”           ”         women     3,422
       ”          ”           ”         children  7,224
  Convicts of both sexes                         13,814
                                                 ------
                                                 37,068

Thus there were among the free adults only twenty-seven women for a
hundred men, that is to say, that seventy-three men in a hundred were
absolutely prevented from marrying.

The relative proportion of convicts of the two sexes is not indicated
in the above account, but it is known that originally the male convicts
formed the great majority, and that there were ever afterwards far
fewer women than men.

In 1825[64] the number of inhabitants amounted to nearly 50,000; but
from this period the convicts were mostly sent to Van Diemen’s Land,
and the white population of Australia diminished rapidly from not
receiving regular reinforcements. In 1836 there were only 36,598 of all
classes.

  Free        men    13,456   }
    ”         women   7,474   }   20,930

  Convicts    men    14,135   }
      ”       women   1,513   }   15,668
                                  ------
                                  36,598

There were thus, among the convicts, only one woman to nine men, and
among the free population one woman to two men.[65]

Hence may be explained the small increase of the population during
the first periods of the colony and the considerable decrease which
corresponds to the period from 1825 to 1830. In 1845, according to
Henricq,[66] New South Wales had, since its foundation, already
received 90,000 convicts of both sexes, beyond an unknown but
considerable number of voluntary emigrants, yet the whole population
consisted only of 85,000 individuals. At the same period there were in
the free class but three females to five males, and among the convicts
one woman to twelve men. In the colony of Hobart Town, in Tasmania, the
disproportion was somewhat less, for there were five free females to
seven males, and one female convict to twelve men.

It is difficult to believe that the free men deprived of women were
all gifted with the virtue of continency. But admitting this for
a moment, we cannot entertain the same opinion with regard to the
convicts, which are certainly not chosen from the most virtuous classes
of Great Britain. It must be noticed that the female convicts are not
public women in the colony. The government accords certain advantages
to convicts who contract legitimate marriages; this is the first step
towards their liberation, and when a vessel arrives with a cargo
of females they are readily espoused by the convicts. Nine-tenths,
therefore, of the latter are entirely deprived of white women. On the
other hand they procure _gins_ (the name of Australian females) with
the greatest facility, and though it may not be known that many of
them cohabit with the females, it may be easily divined and affirmed.
“The women of the people of Port Jackson,” says Lesson, “look out for
and excite the white men, and prostitute themselves for _a glass of
brandy_.”[67]

After observing that these tribes live chiefly from the produce of
the chase, and come to town to exchange their fish for fish-hooks,
bread, or rum, Cunningham adds that this trade gives rise to scenes
of debauchery, that the prostitution of native females with the whites
had assumed considerable proportions, “considering that the Australians
lend their women to the convicts for a slice of bread or a pipe of
tobacco.”[68] It is useless to cite other testimony after the chief
defender of the Australian race has thus expressed himself.

It is thus perfectly certain that numerous alliances have taken place
and are taking place between the Europeans and the native women. The
inhabitants of the colony, who could not but be aware of it, have had
recourse to a singular hypothesis, accepted by Cunningham and recently
by Waitz. They have imagined that the Australian husbands, excited
by jealousy, killed all the new-born children of mixed blood; and to
these hypothetical massacres (of which there is no proof whatever) they
attribute the rarity of cross-breeds. In order that this tale should
acquire some probability, it is first requisite that all the Australian
women should be under the dominion of jealous and ferocious husbands,
and that none of the females had the maternal instinct sufficiently
developed to save her child from the fury of her husband. Cunningham,
in accepting this explanation, forgets that he in the same page relates
that the Australians prostitute their _gins_ to the first comer for a
pipe of tobacco. Such beings would not feel themselves much dishonoured
by the birth of the strange child. But here is an instance proving that
the Australians are not altogether devoid of humour; showing, at least,
that they have no notion of conjugal honour. Bongarri, of whom we have
already spoken, and who in 1825 was the most celebrated chief of the
Australian hordes of Port Jackson, treated as his son the offspring of
the adulterous intercourse of his _gin_ with a convict of the place.
When he was asked how it came to pass that his son had such a fair
complexion, he replied jocularly, “that his wife was very fond of white
bread and had partaken too much of it.” He invariably returned the same
answer to inquirers.[69] If a warrior chief covered with honourable
scars[70] attaches such small importance to the fidelity of his wife,
and jokes about his dishonour, it is scarcely admissible that the men
of his tribe should be more susceptible in this respect. Yet this
very chief found it, according to Cunningham,[71] quite natural that,
according to the Australian custom, the weakest of two new-born twins
should be killed.

This custom has been cited to show that the Australian women attach no
importance to the lives of their children, and that, consequently, they
would offer no resistance to the massacre of the new-born Mulattoes.
A race of beings, where the females do not love their young, would
scarcely be a human race. The custom of preserving only one twin, and
to sacrifice the other on the day of its birth, seems improbable and
inexplicable; but taking into consideration the famishing condition
of the Australians, the uncertainty and the insufficiency of their
alimentation, the absolute want of social organisation, and the
material difficulty attending the bringing up of only one child, it
may be imagined that the mother, incapable, perhaps, of suckling one
baby, resigns herself to sacrificing one child to save the other. There
is, therefore, no absolute parallel between the custom in regard to
twins and that of the pretended massacre of cross-breeds. If it be
still supposed that the natives of the environs of Sydney, perverted
by their intercourse with convicts, and exasperated by their violence,
have adopted this revolting habit, we should even then only admit
that such a degradation is merely local in its application. Certain
abominations spread from place to place, and are transmitted from
people to people; but a usage so contrary to natural instinct, does
not arise simultaneously, and under the same form in different parts
of a country. The Australians, however, of Sydney, have no means of
transmitting their customs either to the natives of Tasmania, or of
Port Essington in North Australia. Dr. Waitz supposes that even seven
hundred miles from Sydney the natives sacrifice all young Mulattoes.
This supposition is rather hazardous, specially as the traveller whom
he quotes merely says that these Mulattoes do not appear to be capable
of development.[72]

We conclude from this perhaps too lengthy discussion, that the
murder of the Australian Mulattoes is a vulgar tale. Admitting that
such murders occur occasionally, or even that they are frequent,
there should even then be many Mulattoes in Australia provided the
intermixture be very prolific. We can in the above strange explanation
only find a confirmation, and a very strong one too, of the fact we
have established, namely, that the cross-breeds are rare in Australia.
If this fact had not been perfectly evident, there would not have been
any occasion to explain it, and Mr. Cunningham, who has made such
strenuous efforts to reinstate the natives, would not have charged them
with such a terrible accusation.

We have not exhausted the list of hypotheses advanced, to explain the
nearly constant sterility attending the intercourse between Australians
and Tasmanians and the English. It has also been said that for the most
part the intercourse between the two races was accidental, momentary,
and that consequently the native woman has a much greater chance to
become pregnant by her savage husband than by her European lovers,
and that the rarity of Australian Mulattoes had no other cause. M. de
Freycinet seems to have accepted this explanation. “No _permanent_
alliances are formed between the two peoples, though we find here
and there some Mulattoes; but these are merely the result of some
transitory connections of Europeans with Australian women.”[73]

We would first observe that the number of mongrels is in many countries
much more considerable, if the intermixture is effected in the same
manner as is notably the case in South Africa. There are cross-breeds
in several of the Polynesian Islands, where the Europeans have never
permanently settled, but only appeared temporarily. There should,
therefore, be a good number of them in the Australian colonies, even
if it were true that the Whites have never formed a permanent alliance
with the native females. It can, however, not be doubted, that more or
less enduring alliances have taken place between the two races, namely,
that many Whites have kept for months and years Australian concubines
under their roof.[74] This fact positively results from the controversy
raised by Count Strzelecki. This celebrated traveller, who has visited
America and Oceania, remarked that the native women, after having once
lived with the white race, become sterile with the men of their own
race, though they may still be capable of becoming pregnant by white
men. He asserts that he has collected hundreds of such cases among the
Hurons, Seminoles, Araucaños, Polynesians, and Melanesians. He does
not attempt to explain this strange phenomenon, which, he observes, is
owing to some mysterious law, and which appears to him to be one of the
causes of the rapid decay of indigenous populations in regions occupied
by Europeans.[75]

Mr. Alex. Harvey says that Professors Goodsir, Maunsel, and Carmichael
have, from various sources, ascertained that Count Strzelecki’s
assertion is _unquestionable_, and must be considered as the expression
of a law of nature.[76]

M. de Strzelecki has not specified that the sterilisation of the native
females was the consequence of the procreation of cross-breeds. He
merely speaks of sexual relations in general; and it appears to result
from the text, that a native woman who has cohabited for some time with
a European, becomes sterile in the intercourse with men of her own
race, even if she has not produced a child.

It has, however, been assumed that this observer speaks only of such
women who have at least once been impregnated by a European, and it
is in this form that the question has been examined by physiologists.
The question has been asked, how the gestation of a Mulatto’s fœtus
could modify the constitution of the mother to render her barren with
the men of her own race; and Mr. Alex. Harvey,[77] in developing a
theory of Mr. McGillivray, has supposed that the embryo, whilst in
utero, subjected the mother, by some sort of inoculation, to organic
or dynamic modifications, the elements of which had been transmitted
to the embryo by the father, and the mother would then retain the
impress permanently. In support of this hypothesis, the author reminds
us that certain diseases, such as old and non-contagious syphilis,
may be communicated to the mother by the mediation of the fœtus.
He further observes that in horses, oxen, sheep, and dogs, a female,
impregnated for the first time by a male, may for a long time preserve
a certain disposition to produce with another male young resembling the
first, a phenomenon well-known to breeders. He finally remarks that a
mare, having given birth to a mule, conceives subsequently with greater
difficulty from horses than from asses, and he connects these instances
with those of the native women who once impregnated by a white man,
become by it barren in their connexion with men of their own race
without, however, losing the capacity of becoming again pregnant by
white men.

I cannot accept this adventurous theory which Dr. Carpenter was nearly
ready to adopt, but which he has discarded in a postscript, owing
to fresh information which he received while his article went to
press.[78] The influence of the first male upon the succeeding progeny
has been many times rendered evident by the crossing of animals of the
same race, and even of different species.[79] The existence of such
a phenomenon in the human species is, at any rate, still doubtful,
and the connexion of facts of this kind, with Strzelecki’s assertion,
is yet more questionable. We must also observe that Strzelecki, in
pointing out the barrenness of savage women who have cohabited with the
Whites, does not merely speak of such who have produced Mulattoes, but
applies equally to those women who had not given birth to any children;
and if Mr. Harvey had taken the exact meaning of the text, he might,
perhaps, not have advanced his theory.

The observations of M. de Strzelecki, though made in various regions,
have been published in a work on Australia. It was thought that he
spoke especially of the native women of New South Wales, and it was
more from that country that more information was expected on that
subject. Mr. Heywood Thomson, a surgeon of the English navy, took up
the question, and sent to the _Edinburgh Monthly Journal_ an article
tending to refute Strzelecki’s assertion. This article effectively
shows that Strzelecki’s opinion was far too general. The author states,
that he had known a colonist of the Macquarie river, who communicated
to him the following fact:--One of his convict servants had a child
born him by an Australian woman, who subsequently returned to her own
tribe, had then a second child by a native man. Mr. Thomson states,
that other instances of the kind had occurred in the colony; and
he strikes a fatal blow at Mr. Harvey’s theory by adding, that the
Australian women who have for a certain time cohabited with the Whites,
are not more prolific with them than with the natives. But though Mr.
Thomson has endeavoured to prove that the cohabitation with Europeans
does not necessarily render Australian women barren with men of their
own race, he acknowledges that such a result is very common. He admits
it as a fact which cannot be contested,[80] and considers it so certain
that he tries to explain it, by attributing it to the following
causes:--

1. The European who has cohabited with an Australian woman, sends
her away after the lapse of a few years, when she is often not young
enough to produce children, as Australian women rarely conceive after
the thirtieth year. 2. The cohabitation with a European modifies
the constitution of the savage woman, who smokes, and is frequently
intoxicated during that time. 3. Having not lost the habits of savage
life, she returns to her tribe, where she now has some difficulty to
support fatigues and irregularities, which diminishes her fecundity. 4.
Finally, when she becomes a mother, and the fatigues of maternity are
added to her other troubles, she tries to escape them by infanticide.
It is to the united effect of these causes that the author attributes
the rarity of children born of Australian native women who have
returned to their tribes.

It is very significant when an author, despite of himself, confirms
by his theories, facts which he had undertaken to disprove. I will
not allude again to the story of infanticide, a hundred times more
improbable here, than in cases where the child had been begotten
by a European. Though it follows, from Mr. Thomson’s article, that
Strzelecki’s assertion was too general, it results at the same time
that the assertion was well founded. But this is not the place to
search for the explanation of a phenomenon which, despite the efforts
of Mr. Harvey, does not touch hybridity. If I have dwelt on the
fact, it is because the polemics raised by Strzelecki’s observations
have incontestably established that the _cohabitation_ of Whites and
native Australian women is very common in Australia; and we do not
comprehend under this name the sexual intercourse which is accidental
and transitory, such as occurs when the women come to market, but the
cohabitation under the same roof, and prolonged during several months,
and even years. The scarcity of Australian Mulattoes can thus be
attributed neither to the rarity nor to the transitory nature of sexual
intercourse; neither can we admit, until we are better informed, that
the relative sterility of such crossings is the consequence of some
homœogenesic defect between the two races.

In studying the cases preceding those just mentioned, we have put
the question whether Mulattoes of the first degree were, between
themselves, indefinitely prolific, to answer which we had to analyse
a certain number of facts. In the present case the facts fail us, and
the question can only be examined theoretically. No traveller or author
has spoken of the alliance of Australian Mulattoes between themselves,
nor of their recrossing on the parent stock. No writer has informed
us whether these Mulattoes are robustious, intelligent, vivacious,
or, on the contrary, weak, stupid, and short-lived. One thing appears
to me certain, that the number of young Mulattoes who die at an early
age, or who are not viable, must be relatively considerable, and this
may perhaps have given rise to the accusation of infanticide, which I
have already refuted. This defective progeny is also observed in the
crossings of certain species of animals but little homœogenesic;
and if it be true, as everything tends to establish, that the union
of the Whites and the Australian women is but little prolific, we
may suppose that Mulattoes sprung from such disparate unions, must
enter the category of inferior cross-breeds. Are they very prolific
between themselves? This seems not very probable, though we have no
experimental knowledge of it. It is even doubtful whether they are
very prolific with the Whites, for no one has mentioned the existence
of Quadroon Mulattoes, which might be as easily recognised as the
Quadroons of the Antilles. However small the number of hybrid women of
the first degree may be, these women ought to have produced with the
Whites, if they had been very prolific, a progeny which ought to have
become numerous in the population of a colony founded above seventy
years; for there can be no doubt that there, as everywhere, the woman
of colour selects by preference the alliance of men of a superior race.

I am far from advancing these suppositions as demonstrated truths.
I have studied and analysed all documents within my reach; but I
cannot be responsible for facts not ascertained by myself, and which
are too much in opposition to generally received opinions to be
admitted without strict investigation. I, therefore, earnestly draw
the attention of travellers, and especially of physicians resident in
Australia to this subject, the importance of which I have endeavoured
to point out. Until we obtain further particulars we can only reason
upon the known facts; but these, it must be admitted, are so numerous
and so authentic as to constitute if not a rigorous definitive
demonstration, at least a strong presumption in favour of the doctrines
of polygenists.

From the whole of our researches on the hybridity of the human race we
obtain the following results:--

1. That certain intermixtures are perfectly eugenesic.

2. That other intermixtures are in their results notably inferior to
those of eugenesic hybridity.

3. That Mulattoes of the first degree, issued from the union of the
Germanic (Anglo-Saxon) race with the African Negroes, appear inferior
in fecundity and longevity to individuals of the pure races.

4. That it is at least doubtful, whether these Mulattoes, in their
alliances between themselves, are capable of indefinitely perpetuating
their race, and that they are less prolific in their direct alliances
than in their recrossing with the parent stocks, as is observed in
paragenesic hybridity.

5. That alliances between the Germanic race (Anglo-Saxon) with the
Melanesian races (Australians and Tasmanians) are but little prolific.

6. That the Mulattoes sprung from such intercourse are too rare to
have enabled us to obtain exact particulars as to their viability and
fecundity.

7. That several degrees of hybridity, which have been observed in the
cross-breeds of animals of different species, seem also to occur in the
various crossings of men of different races.

8. That the lowest degree of human hybridity in which the
homœogenesis is so feeble as to render the fecundity of the first
crossing uncertain, is exhibited in the most disparate crossings
between one of the most elevated and the two lowest races of humanity.



SECTION IV.

RECAPITULATION AND CONCLUSION.


The numerous and controverted questions which we had to discuss, have
more than once interrupted the chain of our thesis. It may, therefore,
be useful to present here a _résumé_ of the various parts of our
argumentation.

Zoologists have, in _each_ of the natural groups which constitute the
genera, recognised _several_ types which they denominate species.[81]

The human group evidently constitutes one genus; if it consisted only
of one species, it would form a single exception in creation. It is,
therefore, but natural to presume, that this genus is, like all the
others, composed of different species.

In the greater number of genera, the various species differ much less
from each other than certain human races. A naturalist, who, without
touching the question of origin, purely and simply applies to the human
genus the general principles of zootaxis, would be inclined to divide
this genus into different species.

This mode of viewing the subject can only be abandoned, if it were by
observation demonstrated that all the difference between human races
had been the result of modifications caused in the organisation of man
by the influence of media.

The monogenists have at first made great efforts to furnish such a
demonstration, but without success. Observation has, on the contrary,
shown, that though the organisation of man may, in the course of
time, and under the influence of external conditions, undergo some
modification, yet that these modifications are relatively very slight,
and have no relation to the typical differences of human races. Man,
transplanted into a new climate, and subjected to a new mode of life,
conserves and transmits to posterity all the essential characters of
his race, and his descendants do not acquire the character of the
indigenous race or races. _Cœlum, non corpus mutant qui trans mare
currunt._

The monogenists have objected that the period of distant colonies is
too recent; that the observations tending to establish the permanence
of human types date scarcely from three or four centuries, and that
this lapse of time is insufficient to produce a transformation of
races, and that such a transformation has been produced gradually
during the long series of centuries elapsed, according to some from the
creation of man, and according to others since the Deluge.

But the study of the Egyptian paintings has shown, that on the one hand
the principal types of the human genus existed then, 2,500 years at
least before Jesus Christ, as they exist at this day.

Again, the Jewish race, scattered for more than eighteen centuries in
the most different climates, is everywhere the same now as it was in
Egypt at the time of the Pharaohs.

The period of _positive_ observations dates thus, from more than forty
centuries and not from three or four.[82]

Having no longer any hope to prove by direct demonstrations that the
distinctive characters of human races are transformations of one
primitive type, the monogenists sought for indirect proofs. They
believed to have found them in this fact, or rather assertion, that
there is always a certain relation between the characters of human
races and the media in which they exist. On close examination this
assertion is found to be without any foundation. On studying one by
one the principal ethnological characters and their distribution on
the surface of the globe, it has been shown that there is no relation
between these different characters and the climatic and hygienic
conditions.

The monogenists then resorted to an argumentation still more indirect.
They advanced that in the whole _genus homo_ there existed a fund of
common ideas, creeds, knowledge, and language, attesting the common
origin of all human beings. It might be objected that this argument is
without any value whatever; considering that indirect communications
between peoples of different origin might have passed to each other
words, usages, and ideas. But a profound study of the question has
shown that there are certain peoples who have absolutely no notion of
God or soul, whose languages have no relation whatever to any, who are
altogether anti-social, and who differ from the Caucasians more by the
intellectual and moral capacities than by their physical characters.

There was even no necessity to insist upon the difficulty, or rather
geographical impossibility of the dispersion of so many races
proceeding from a common origin, nor to remark that before the remote
and the almost recent migrations of Europeans, each natural group
of human races occupied upon our planet a region characterised by a
special fauna; that no American animal was found either in Australia
nor in the ancient continent, and where men of a new type were
discovered, there were only found animals belonging to species, even to
genera, and sometimes to zoological orders, without analogues in other
regions of the globe.

And whilst it was thus simple to suppose that there were several _faci_
of the creation of man, as well as of other beings; and whilst this
doctrine, so conformable to all the data furnished by natural science,
removed all geographical objections, explaining thus all the analogies
and differences of human types, and the repartition of each group;
whilst, in one word, it exactly accounted for all the known facts,
the opposite doctrine moved in a circle of contradictory suppositions
superimposed by hypotheses; theories founded upon a small number of
facts upset by other unexpected facts; imaginary influences refuted by
observation; anti-historical legends dispelled by historical monuments;
lame explanations destroyed by physiology; obscure sophisms refuted by
logic; and all this to demonstrate, not exactly that all races descend
from the same pair, but that, strictly speaking, such is not altogether
impossible.

Whence have the monogenists derived the requisite perseverance and
courage to impose upon their reason such continuous restraint, and to
resist the testimonies of observation, science, and history?

On analysing their system, we find at every moment two fundamental
axioms which serve them as articles of faith, and the evidence of which
appears to them sufficient to surmount all other objections.

These two axioms have served as the premises of an apparently
irresistible syllogism.

1. All animals, capable of producing an eugenesic progeny, are of the
same species.

2. All human crossings are eugenesic.

Therefore, all men are of the same species.

The monogenists, convinced of the reality of the premises of this
syllogism, thought their doctrine to stand on a solid foundation, and
defended it with that confidence inspired by conviction.

Assailed by pressing objections, constantly obliged to yield, incapable
of advancing a step without an immediate retreat, they felt their
forces revive by resorting to their syllogism, like Antæus when he
touched the earth. As long as the refuge remained they continued the
struggle, though not with advantage, at least with the ardour of faith;
for though faith no longer moves mountains, it still leaves the hope of
moving them.

But these two fundamental propositions, admitted as axioms, do they
express the truth? Can this triumphant syllogism, of which they are the
premises, stand? Is it true that only animals of the same species can
produce a prolific progeny? Is it true that all human crossings are
eugenesic? To upset the syllogism of the monogenists, and to deprive
their system of any scientific base, it might be sufficient that the
first of the above questions should be answered in the negative.
The system would then become what it was before it came in contact
with science, namely, a belief more or less respectable, founded
upon a sentiment or a dogma. But if the second question were also
negatived, and it could be demonstrated that all human crossings are
not eugenesic, then not merely the syllogism, but the whole doctrine of
the monogenists would crumble to pieces. The doctrine would then not
merely be extra-scientific, but anti-scientific; it being positive that
two groups of animals, so different as to be incapable of fusion by
generation, do not belong to the same species. This is an incontestable
and uncontested truth.

We were thus led to examine successively the two fundamental
propositions serving as a base to the unitarian doctrine, for which
purpose a series of researches were requisite.

We have, in the first place, investigated the results of certain
crossings between animals of incontestably different species, such as
dogs and wolves, goats and sheep, camels and dromedaries, hares and
rabbits, etc.; and we have demonstrated _that these crossings produce
eugenesic mongrels, that is to say, perfectly and indefinitely prolific
between themselves_.

It is thus not true that all animals capable of producing an eugenesic
progeny are of the same species; and even if all human intermixtures
were eugenesic, as is generally believed, we could not infer from this
the unity of the human species. The monogenists are thus deprived of
their principal basis and their sole scientific argument.

It was, however, necessary to inquire, whether this popular axiom,
that all human crossings are eugenesic, was a demonstrated truth or a
lightly accepted hypothesis, without any verification or control? Such
has been the object of our second series of investigations.

We recognised at the outset that the monogenists, considering
their axiom as self-evident, have made no efforts to establish its
correctness, so that, strictly speaking, we might have discarded it.
When, contrary to the opinion of several modern authors, we wished to
establish that there were really eugenesic intermixtures in the human
genus, we found in science assertions without proofs, and we believe
that our investigations concerning the mixed populations of France
have, in this respect, the merit of novelty. We may be mistaken as to
the value of our demonstration; but we venture to assert, that this
demonstration is the first that has been attempted.

After having rendered, if not quite certain, at least extremely
probable, that _certain_ human crossings are eugenesic, we have
inquired whether _all_ human crossings are in the same condition.

From the documents collected it results, that _certain_ human crossings
yield results notably inferior to such as constitute in animals
eugenesic hybridity. The whole of the known facts permit us to consider
as very probable, that certain human races taken two by two are less
homœogenesic; as, for instance, the species of the dog and the wolf.
If we are to make any reservation, and leave some doubts upon this
conclusion, it is that we cannot admit, without numerous verifications,
a fact which definitively demonstrates the plurality of human species;
a fact, by the presence of which, all other discussion is rendered
superfluous; a fact, finally, of which the political and social
consequences would be immense.

We cannot too much insist upon drawing the attention of observers upon
this subject. But whatever be the result of ulterior researches on
human hybridity, it remains well attested that animals of different
species may produce an eugenesic progeny, and that consequently we
cannot, from the fecundity of human intermixture, however disparate the
races may be, draw a physiological argument in favour of the unity of
species, even if the fecundity were as certain as it is doubtful.

The great problem we have investigated in this essay is one of those
which have caused great agitation, and most difficult to approach with
a mind unbiassed by any extra-scientific preconception. This was almost
inevitable; but science must keep aloof from anything not within its
province. There is no faith, however respectable, no interest, however
legitimate, which must not accommodate itself to the progress of human
knowledge and bend before truth, if that truth be demonstrated. Hence
it is always hazardous to mix up theological arguments with discussions
of this kind, and to stigmatise in the name of religion any scientific
opinion, since, if that opinion, sooner or later gains ground,
religion has been uselessly compromised. The unskilful intervention
of theologians in astronomical questions (rotation of the earth), in
physiology (pre-existence of germs), in medicine (possessions), etc.,
has formed more infidels than the writings of philosophers. Why should
men be placed in the dilemma of choosing between science and faith?
And when so many striking examples have placed theologians under the
necessity to acknowledge that revelation is not applicable to science,
why do they obstinately continue to place the Bible before the wheels
of progress?[83]

Sincere Christians have understood that the moment is come to prepare
the conciliation of the doctrine of the polygenists with the sacred
writings. They are disposed to admit that the Mosaic narration does
not apply to the whole human race, but merely to the _Adamites_, from
which sprung God’s people; that there may have been other human beings
with whom the sacred writer had no concern; that it is nowhere said
that the sons of Adam contracted incestuous alliances with their own
sisters; that Cain, banished after the murder of his brother, had a
mark set upon him that no one might kill him; that, besides the sons
of God, there was a race of the sons of man; that the origin of the
sons of men is not specified; that nothing authorises us to consider
these as the progeny of Adam; that these two races differed in their
physical characters, since, by their union, a cross-breed was produced
designated by the name of giants, “to indicate the physical and moral
energy of mixed races.” And that, finally, all these antediluvian
races might have survived the deluge in the persons of the three
daughters-in-law of Noah.[84]

We have collated here the observations of various authors, one of
whom, the Rev. John Bachmann, remarks with evident satisfaction that,
if contrary to the prevailing opinion, the multiplicity of human
species should eventually be demonstrated, which he considers very
improbable, the authority of the Bible would still remain unshaken,
and that “the highest interest of mankind would not suffer by it.”
We have here a preparatory conciliation as a sort of prevision of
ulterior scientific developments. Very recently a fervent Catholic,
a physician, who in his various voyages has attentively studied the
races of mankind, Mr. Sagot, has advanced an hypothesis which we
consider as quite new, and which would enable us, better than by the
preceding suppositions, to accommodate the biblical narration with
anthropological science. After having demonstrated that the physical,
intellectual, and moral characters establish between the races of men
profound differences, which are indelible, and that all influences to
which they have been attributed are absurd and imaginary, inasmuch as
natural causes would never have produced such a deviation from the
primitive form, Mr. Sagot supposes that the division in perfectly
distinct races, and their methodical dispersion and repartition upon
the surface of the earth, was a miraculous intervention of Providence.
He is of opinion that this great fact was accomplished at the period of
the confusion of tongues, that is, after the audacious enterprise of
the Tower of Babel, and that God, in dispersing the families, endowed
each with a peculiar organisation and aptitudes accommodated to the
various climates assigned to them.[85] Whether the differences of
human races and their geographical distribution was the consequence
of distinct creations, or miraculous transformations equivalent to
new creations, comes to the same thing as regards the doctrine of
polygenists. Their object is not to enter into any theological
discussions; they have been driven to it, and they will no doubt be
delighted to hear that their doctrine may become developed without
offending anybody.

The intervention of political and social considerations has not been
less injurious to Anthropology than the religious element. When
generous philanthropists claimed, with indefatigable constancy, the
liberty of the blacks, the partisans of the old system, threatened
in their dearest interests, were enchanted to hear that Negros were
scarcely human beings, but rather domestic animals, more intelligent
and productive than the rest. At that time the scientific question
became a question of sentiment, and whoever wished for the abolition of
slavery, thought himself bound to admit that Negroes were Caucasians
blackened and frizzled by the sun. Now that France and England, the two
most civilised nations, have definitively emancipated their slaves,
science may claim its rights without caring for the sophisms of
slaveholders.

Many honest men think that the moment to speak freely is not yet come,
as the emancipation struggle is far from being at an end in the United
States of America, and that we should avoid furnishing the slaveholders
with arguments. But is it true that the polygenist doctrine, which is
scarcely a century old,[86] is any degree responsible for an order
of things which has existed from time immemorial, and which has
developed and perpetuated itself during a long series of centuries,
under the shade of the doctrine of monogenists, which remained so
long uncontested? And can we believe that the slave-owners are much
embarrassed to find arguments in the Bible? The Rev. John Bachmann,
a fervent monogenist of South Carolina, has acquired in the Southern
States much popularity by demonstrating, with great unction, that
slavery is a divine institution.[87] It is not from the writings of
polygenists, but from the Bible, that the representatives of the
Slave States have drawn their arguments; and Mr. Bachmann tells us
that the Abolitionists of Congress have been struck dumb by such an
irrefragable authority! It must, therefore, not be believed that there
is any connexion between the scientific and the political question.
The difference of origin by no means implicates the subordination of
races. It, on the contrary, implicates the idea that each race of men
has originated in a determined region, as it were, as the crown of
the fauna of that region; and if it were permitted to guess at the
intention of nature, we might be led to suppose that she has assigned
a distinct inheritance to each race, because, despite of all that has
been said of the cosmopolitism of man, the inviolability of the domain
of certain races is determined by their climate.

Let this mode of viewing the question be compared with that of the
monogenists, and let it be asked which of the two modes is more apt
to please the defenders of slavery. If all men are descendants of one
couple,--if the inequality of races has been the result of a curse
more or less merited,--or again, if the one have degraded themselves,
and have allowed the torch of their primitive intelligence to become
extinct, whilst the other have carefully guarded the precious gift
of the Creator,--in other words, if there be cursed and blessed
races,--races which have obeyed the voice of nature and races which
have disobeyed it,--then the Rev. John Bachmann is right to say that
slavery is a Divine right; that it is a providential punishment;
and that it is just, to a certain point, that those races who have
degraded themselves should be placed under the _protection_ of
others,--to borrow an ingenious euphemism from the language of the
defenders of slavery.[88] But if the Ethiopian is king of Soudan by the
same right as the Caucasian is king of Europe, what right has he to
impose laws upon the former, unless by the right of might? In the first
case, slavery presents itself with a certain appearance of legitimacy
which might render it excusable in the eyes of certain theoricians; in
the second case, it is a fact of pure violence, protested against by
all who derive no benefit from it.

From another point of view, it might be said that the polygenist
doctrine assigns to the inferior races of humanity a more honourable
place than in the opposite doctrine. To be inferior to another man
either in intelligence, vigour, or beauty, is not a humiliating
condition. On the contrary, one might be ashamed to have undergone a
physical or moral degradation, to have descended the scale of beings,
and to have lost rank in creation.



FOOTNOTES:

[1] Gobineau, _Inégalité des Races Humaines_, 8vo, Paris, 1855; [also
translated into English, _On the Inequality of Human Races_, and edited
by Henry Hotze, 8vo. EDITOR.]

[2] “The sole action of the laws of Hybridity,” says Nott, “might
exterminate the whole human species if all the various types of human
beings actually existing on the earth were completely to amalgamate.”
_Types of Mankind_, p. 407, eighth edit., Philadelphia, 1857. Dr.
Robert Knox is not less explicit. “I do not believe that any Mulatto
race can be maintained beyond the third or fourth generation by
_Mulattos merely_; they must intermarry with the pure races or
perish.” Robert Knox, _The Races of Men_, London, 1850.

[3] Georges Pouchet, _De la Pluralité des Races Humaines_, p. 140,
Paris, 1858. [A translation of this work will shortly be published by
the Anthropological Society of London, edited by T. Bendyshe, Esq.,
M.A., F.A.S.L. EDITOR.]

[4] Prichard, _Natural History of Man_.

[5] Davis and Thurnam, _Crania Britannica_, p. 7, No. 4, London, 1856.

[6] See the voyages of Truter and Somerville (1801), Lichtenstein
(1805), Campbell (1813), John Philips (1825), Thompson (1824), etc.,
in the Collection of Voyages by Walkenaer, t. xv-xxi, Paris, 1842. In
1801 Truter and Somerville found near the Orange or Gariep river, in
the district where now Griqua town stands, a horde of _Bastaards_ and
_Bosjesmen_, commanded by a Bastaard of the name of Kok (t. xvii, p.
364). On their return they found a considerable village, composed of
Kaffirs, Hottentots, and mongrel breeds of several varieties, under
the command of a chief named Kok (p. 393). In the same year Kitchener,
the missionary, assembled the horde in a village. There came pure
Hottentots and Namaquas (t. xviii, p. 126). In 1802 Anderson, the
missionary, in organising the growing nation, gave authority to the
Bastaards (p. 127). The village of Laawater or Klaarwater, which
has since become Griqua-town, consisted in 1805, when Lichtenstein
visited it, of about thirty families, one-half of which belonged to
the Bastaard race, the rest were Namaquas or Hottentots. The village
enlarged rapidly “by the arrival of refugees, and by marriages with the
women of the Bosjesmen and the Koramas, who lived in the vicinity” (t.
xix, p. 355). They practised polygamy. “They constituted a horde of
nomadic naked savages, living by pillage and the chase; their bodies
were besmeared with red paint, the hair covered with grease, living in
ignorance, without any trace of civilisation” (p. 356). After the lapse
of five years the missionaries commenced civilising them by giving them
the taste for agricultural pursuits. The name, however, of _Bastaards_,
which indicated their European origin, was no longer suitable to this
nation, in which the African blood was greatly predominating. They
took, therefore, the name of _Griquas_. Campbell asserts that they
chose that name, as it was that of the principal family (t. xviii,
p. 395). This explanation appears to me very doubtful. Ten Rhyne,
who explored Southern Africa in 1673, twenty year after the first
disembarkation of Europeans, already mentions the existence of a
Hottentot people who went by the name of _Gregoriquos_ (t. xv, p. 122).
Thirty years after (1705) Kolbe designates the same people _Gauriquas_
(t. xv, p. 253). There existed at that time another people, called
_Chirigriquas_. In 1775 Thunberg still speaks of Gauriquas (t. xvi,
p. 201), and of Chirigriquas. All these names have evidently the same
root, and the singularity of Hottentot enunciation induced probably
the various travellers to adopt a different orthography. It is thus
presumable that the Hottentots of Klaarwater, in calling themselves
Griquas, merely adopted the old name Gauriquas. There exists to
this day the people _Koraquas_, signifying “people who wear shoes”
(Burchell, t. xx, p. 60). They live in the neighbourhood of Klaarwater.
Be this as it may, the new people of the Griquas gave to Klaarwater,
influenced by the English missionaries, the name of Griqua-town. This
town, called by Malte-Brun Kriqua, grew rapidly by the adjunction
of the Koranas. In 1813 there were not less than 1,341 Koranas in
a population of 2,607 inhabitants (t. xviii, p. 393). In 1814 the
governor of the Cape tried to force the Griquas to furnish men for the
indigenous army. The proposal was very badly received, and the nation
was nearly in a state of dissolution. A portion of the inhabitants of
Griqua-town escaped to the surrounding mountains, and formed bands of
robbers, who, under the name of Bergmaars, devastated the country,
and, associating with bands of Koranas, pillaged and massacred the
Betchouanas and the Bosjesmen, and _carried off their women and
children_. In 1825, owing to the intervention of John Philips, the
Bergmaars were reduced to order, and returned to Griqua-town. They
had now crossed with the Koranas, the Betchouanas, and Bosjesmen (t.
xviii, p. 357). Some time previously a grave dissension had broken
out among the settled Griquas. The governor of the Cape had sent an
agent, John Melvil, with an important charge to a certain Waterboer, a
Bosjesman by origin. The supremacy had hitherto belonged to the family
Kok, who, proud of the drops of European blood in their veins, would
not recognise the authority of Waterboer, and emigrated accordingly.
Waterboer was, however, not dismissed; and in 1825 John Philips found
the Griquas divided in three kraals, under the chiefs Kok, Berend, and
Waterboer (t. xix, p. 370). If Dr. Prichard had taken the trouble to
consult these documents he would have recognised that the Griquas had,
by so many consecutive crossings, become almost a pure African race.
Modern geographers range therefore the Griquas among the Hottentots,
calling them Hottentot-Griquas. It is also noteworthy that Prichard,
in citing the Griquas as an example of a mixed race, has given no
description of them. In order that the example should be of any value,
it is requisite that the Griquas should present an intermediate type
between the Europeans and the natives. Neither Dr. Prichard nor any
travellers say so. There is another consideration. The origin of the
Griqua nation dates from the beginning of the nineteenth century. Dr.
Prichard last speaks of them in 1843. Two generations had not yet
elapsed. There is another point. In 1800 the tribe of Kok was a horde
but little numerous; in 1824 it was a people of five thousand souls,
including seven hundred armed warriors (Thompson, _loc. cit._, t.
xxi, p. 22). It is clear that this people were not descended from the
primitive tribe, but had increased by numerous adjunctions. Father
Peteam himself, if he were still alive, would be obliged to admit this.
I have been very minute as to the Griquas, but I flatter myself that
this is sufficient to discard from science the assertion of Prichard,
which all modern monogenists have received with so much favour.

[7] Quoy et Gaimard, _Observat. sur la constitution physique des
Papous_, reproduit dans Lesson. _Complement des Œuvres de Buffon_,
t. iii., Paris, 1829.

[8] Domeny de Rienzi, _l’Oceanie_, t. iii, p. 303. Paris, 1837.

[9] Maury, _La terre et l’homme_, p. 365. Paris, 1847.

[10] Latham, _The Natural History of the Varieties of Man_, p. 213.
London, 1850. Dr. Latham designates the Malays by the somewhat
fantastic name, of Protonesians. There are a great number of neologisms
of this kind in his work.

[11] Some geographers say that Waigiou is a large Island; but they
give no dimensions. It is, however, scarcely as large as the Island of
Majorca. It is of an irregular form, long and narrow; it is about 80
leagues in circumference (Dumont d’Urville in Rienzi, _l’Oceanie_). It
is only 25 leagues long and 10 leagues broad, says Henricy (_Histoire
de l’Oceanie._ Paris, 1845.) The Island of Majorca is only 22 leagues
in length by 16 leagues in breadth. Three races united in such a small
territory, cannot long remain strangers to each other.

[12] Lesson, _loc. cit._ t. ii. p. 19.

[13] Davis, _Crania Britannica_. Introduction, p. 8, note.

[14] These geographical denominations are certainly not irreproachable;
they have even the inconvenience of giving rise to the false idea, that
all races of the same type originated in the same region; that all the
Whites came from the Caucasus, all the Mongolians from Mongolia, the
Blacks from Nigritia, even the Van-Diemen islanders. I have, however,
thought proper to retain these denominations, as they are generally in
use, and have no zoological signification. Such is not the case with
the denominations adopted by certain authors derived from the colour of
the skin. Thus the Caucasians were termed the _white_, the Mongolians
the _yellow_, the Ethiopian the _black_, the Malayo-Polynesian the
_brown_, and finally, the American the _red_ race. It has been shown
that the American type alone includes red, brown, black, white and
yellow races. There are brown races in the American, and even in the
Caucasian type. All the black races do not belong to the Ethiopian
type; and finally, the Malayo-Polynesian type comprises races of
colours as various as those belonging to the American type. A
classification founded on differences of colour would lead to numerous
and serious errors.

[15] It is undoubted that several American races have been destroyed
within 300 years; others having been reduced to a few families, will
soon disappear. The Charruas were exterminated in 1831 by the Spaniards
of South America: root and branch, as Dr. Latham says. In 1835, four
years later, the English of Van Diemen’s Land, after a horrible
massacre, transported 210 Tasmanians, men, women, and children, to a
small island (Flinders), in Bass’ Straits. In 1842, after seven years
of exile, the number of these unfortunates amounted to 54! This was
all that remained of a race which, 40 years previously, occupied the
whole of Van Diemen’s Land, as large as Ireland, and we may soon learn
that none of them are in existence. The Malays have entirely destroyed
the black races who preceded them in certain isles of the great Indian
Archipelago. The Guanches now only exit in a mummified state. The black
and prognathous race which occupied the isles of Japan before the
arrival of the Mongolians, have left no other traces behind than their
crania imbedded in the soil; and it is easy to foresee that within one
or two centuries all the black races will have disappeared from these
parts, and have been succeeded by Malayans and Europeans.

[16] Gerdy, _Physiologie Médicale_, t. i, p. 290. Paris, 1832.

[17] Berard, _Cours de Physiologie_, t. i, p. 465. Paris, 1845.

[18] _Journal de Physiologie_, t. i, p. 120. 1858.

[19] Macedones qui Alexandriam in Ægypto, qui Seleuciam ac Babyloniam,
quique alias sparsas per orbem colonias habent in Syros, Parthos,
Ægyptos degenerarunt. _Tit. L._, lib. xxxviii., § 217.

[20] All the Gauls were not light haired; but those who, three
centuries before our era, invaded Greece and Asia Minor, were fair
haired, according to all testimony; they consequently belonged to the
Kimri race.

[21] Gliddon, _The Monogenists and the Polygenists_. Philadelphia,
1857. George Pouchet, _De la Pluralité des races humaines_, p. 136.
Paris, 1858.

[22] Volney, _Voyage en Syrie et en Egypte_, t. i, p. 98. Paris, 1757.

[23] Knox, _The Races of Man_. 8vo, London, 1850.

[24] Serres, _Rapport sur les resultats scientifiques du voyage de
l’Astrolobe et de la Zélée_ (Comptes Rendus, t. xiii, p, 648.). [The
size of the penis is not a constant character in the “Ethiopian” male.
Instances, however, exist of its enormous development in the west
African Negro.--EDITOR.]

[25] Theodor Waitz (of Marburg), _Anthropologie der Naturvölker_, p.
203. Leipzig, 1859. [Translated into English for the Anthropological
Society of London, and edited by J. Frederick Collingwood, Esq.,
F.G.S., F.R.S.L.: 8vo, London, 1863.--EDITOR.] Mollien, _Voyage dans
l’intérieur de l’Afrique_. Rafnel, _Voyage dans l’Afrique occidentale_,
1846, p. 51. Mohammed-el-Tounsy, _Voyage au Darfour_, p, 227, trad.
Jomard. Paris, 1845.

[26] _Voyage au Pôle sud et dans l’Oceanie sur l’Astrolabe et la
Zélée_, sous le commandement de Dumont-d’Urville, pendant les années
1837-1840: _Zoologie_ par M. Jacquinot, commandant de la Zélée, t. ii,
pp. 91-93. Paris, 1846.

[27] J. C. Nott, _Hybridity of Animals viewed in connexion with the
natural history of mankind: Types of Mankind_. Nott and Gliddon.
Philadelphia, 1854.

[28] Within ten years from 1840 to 1850, the number of slaves in
South Carolina has increased by 56,786. In 1840, there were 327,934
slaves; in 1850, 384,720. This is an increase of more than 17 per
cent. The slaves of all shades are comprised in this account, but the
pure Negroes form the great majority, and it is probable that to them
exclusively is owing the large increase in the number of slaves. The
number of cross-breeds cannot be ascertained by the statistics given.
It would, besides, be impossible to distinguish in the reports given
the Mestizos born from the union of Mulattoes and Mulatresses, and
those from whites and blacks. Statistics thus throw no light upon the
question, whether the Mulatto race maintains itself. But there is a
peculiar class of men of colour which is the object of attention of
certain governments, who maintain with satisfaction that this class
notably diminishes. It is the class of free men of colour, enjoying
certain civic rights very inconvenient for the slave states. There was
a time when the enfranchisement of coloured men had no obstacles to
contend with, and the number of free men of colour increased rapidly.
Many white owners gave freedom to their natural children. But when
restrictive laws were introduced, the number of free coloured men
began diminishing. They no longer ally themselves with the Whites, who
despise them, nor with the slaves, and are thus reduced to intermarry
between themselves. The census of Charleston gave, in 1830, the number
of free coloured men and their descendants as amounting to 2,107;
in 1848 it was reduced to 1,492, a diminution of 605 in 2,107, more
than 29 per cent. The _Charleston Mercury_ published these figures to
show that the class of freed slaves need not excite any apprehension
in South Carolina, and that the Governor carried his zeal too far in
proposing to expel that class. Such an enormous decrease depends,
no doubt to a great extent, on the small number of births. There is
another circumstance which might have contributed to reduce the caste;
which is, that any freed individual, or his descendant, once leaving
the state, is not permitted to return; this, however, forms but a minor
cause of the decay. (See _Charleston Medical Journal_, May 1851, vol.
vi, p. 381).

[29] The first Europeans established at Jamaica were Spaniards or
Portuguese; but the island was, 1655, conquered by the English,
when all _the old colonists_ retired, carrying away the greater
portion of their wealth. Cromwell hastened to re-people the island,
by transporting to it a number of political convicts. In 1659, four
years after the conquest, there were already 4,500 Europeans and 1,400
Negroes on the island. In 1670, the white population amounted to 7,500,
slaves 8,000. It will then, be observed, that the population of Jamaica
descends exclusively from _English_ colonists and Negro slaves. With
regard to the Caribs, they have been entirely exterminated by the
Spaniards a century before the arrival of the English.

[30] Long (Edward), _History of Jamaica_, vol. ii, p. 235, London,
1774, cited in the _Charleston Medical Journal_, vol. vi. 1851.

[31] The relation of Lewis is, in certain respects, more suggestive
than that of Long. The latter says that the Mulattoes of the first
degree are well constituted; while Lewis pretends that they are mostly
_weak and flabby_, whence it results that the physical inferiority
becomes manifest at _the very first crossing_. We believe this to be
incorrect. The author endeavours to explain the defect of vitality
in the children of Mulattoes, and has recourse to a theory which, if
well founded, would, instead of weakening, only strengthen the fact.
On the other hand, we believe that the assertion of Long, despite of
the corrective which accompanies it, is too general. If it were true
that the union of Mulattoes is always unproductive in Jamaica, the fact
would have been too evident not to have been long known, for _absolute_
sterility is easily ascertained. Relative sterility, however, may long
escape notice, considering that there is always in the pure races a
certain number of cases of sporadic sterility. It is probable that
further investigations will establish for Jamaica conclusions analogous
to those adopted by Mr. Nott for South Carolina; namely, that the
Mulattoes of this _English_ island are less prolific between themselves
than with the whites or blacks, and that their direct descendants are
generally less vivacious and prolific than the men of the pure races.

[32] Waitz, _loc. cit._, p. 205. Van Amringe, _Investigation of the
Theories of the Natural History of Man_. Hamilton Smith, _Natural
History of the Human Species_, 1848. Day, _Five Years Residence in the
West Indies_, vol. i, p. 294, 1852.

[33] Seemann, _Reise um die Welt_, bd. 1, p. 314, 1853. Waitz,
_Anthropologie_, p. 207.

[34] _Bulletins de la Société d’Anthropologie_: procés-verbal de la
séance du 1er Mars, 1860, vol. i, p. 206.

[35] Dr. Tschudi adds, “considered as men, the Zambos are far inferior
to the pure races:” _Travels in Peru_, London, 1847. G. Pouchet, _De la
Pluralité des Races Humaines_, p. 137. Paris, 1848.

[36] Boudin, _Géographie Médicale_, Introduction, p. 39. Paris, 1857.

[37] Graf Görtz, _Reise_, bd. iii, p. 288. Waitz, _Anthropologie_,
bd. i, p. 297. I find in the voyage of Havorinus a passage which may,
perhaps, explain the singular act pointed out by Graf Görtz. Having
given the number of the European population of Batavia, Havorinus
adds, “Among the Europeans figure also such as are born from European
parents, among whom females form the great majority” (Havorinus,
_Voyage par le Cap de Bonne-Espérance et Samarang, et traduit du
Hollandais_, chap. viii, t. II, p. 283. Paris). It seems thus that
the influence of climate produces some modification in the generative
powers of Europeans, rendering them less apt to procreate males even
with the women of their own race. This modification may be transmitted
to their descendants by intermixtures. The fact of Havorinus should,
however, be verified.

[38] Steen Bille, _Bericht über die Reise der Galathea_, bd. i, p. 376,
1852: Waitz, _loc. cit._

[39] A. de Quatrefages, _Du Croisement des races humaines; Revue des
Deux-Mondes_, t. viii, p. 162, _en note_, 1857.

[40] In America, the intermixture between Whites, Negroes, and
Mulattoes passes differently. The Mulattoes are slaves like the
Negroes. A large number of Mulatresses become the concubines of the
White: and the Mulattoes are mostly obliged to confine themselves to
Negro women. There are, then, relatively few unions between Mulattoes
of the same blood. The abolition of slavery neither could, nor will
for a long time, sensibly modify this state of things. The prejudice
against colour will not soon become effaced; and many Mulatto women
prefer to be the mistresses of Whites to being the wives of Mulattoes.
In the East Indies, the prejudice of colour does not exist. The Whites
are merely considered as an aristocratic class; the Malays are free
as well as the Mulattoes, they have always been so. The Mulattoes are
proud of having in their veins European blood, as, in our own country,
certain citizens are proud of their aristocratic alliances. They form
thus, _in the centres of the population_, a sort of intermediate caste
between the Whites and the natives.

[41] It is necessary to mention, that the expression of the first
degree designates here not merely the individuals issued from the
first intermixture, but also the descendants of unions which they form
between themselves.

[42] Waitz, _loc. cit._ p. 207.

[43] Mr. Gutzlaff, the Chinese missionary, has been struck with the
little fecundity of the Mulattoes of Cambojia, the offspring of the
native race and the immigrant Chinese. Cambojia is situated south-west
of Siam, south of Anam, between 10° and 14°. “It is remarkable,” he
observes, “that the marriages of native females with the Chinese are
productive at the first generation, but become gradually sterile, and
completely so at the fifth generation. I have seen many such cases;
but, I cannot explain such a degeneration between nations so similar in
physical conformation, and their mode of life. If it were not so, the
Chinese race ought to become predominant, and absorb the native race
in a few centuries. Such has not been the case, and the innumerable
immigrants which China pours in appear scarce among the population.”
(Gutzlaff, _Geography of the Cochin-Chinese Empire, Journal of the
Royal Geographical Society of London_, vol. xix, p. 108, London. 1849.)

[44] It is unknown what is the degree of intermixture in the hybrid
populations of Mexico and South America; the observations relative to
these crossings are extremely difficult to collect, for the variation
of Mulattoes of different degrees is not so apparent as in the
Mulattoes, Quadroons, etc., of Negroes and Europeans. With regard to
colour, hair, shape of the cranium, the European races, especially
those of the south, differ infinitely less from the American races than
from the Ethiopian and the intermediate characters; even Mulattoes
of the first degree are much less marked in the first than in the
second case. Thus the famous Paulistas of the province of Saint-Paul,
Brazil, issued from the union of Portuguese and Indians, constitute a
vigorous class, brave, and even heroic, though ferocious and turbulent.
According to certain authors, the European blood predominates in them;
others, on the contrary, maintain that they are pure Indians. These
contradictions prove the difficulty of estimating the degree of the
intermixture between the Mulattoes sprung from Europeans and Indians.
The question whether _Mulattoes of the first degree_ are indefinitely
prolific _between themselves_,--whether they are habitually, or only
exceptionally so, cannot be solved by travellers. Resident observers,
and especially physicians, may ultimately furnish precise facts.

[45] The Chabeins are eugenesic hybrids, while mules, properly so
called, are dysgenesic hybrids.

[46] _Monthly Journal of Medical Science, Edinburgh_, vol. xi, p. 301,
1850. [The most flagrant instance of this is to be found amongst the
mixed blooded descendants of the Anglo-Saxon, German, Dutch, French,
and Irish nations in the Federal States of America, whose “manifest
destiny,” according to their own hope, is the “annexation” of the
civilised world. The Puritans of New England founded their claims to
the colony on the following propositions:--1. That the earth is the
Lord’s and the fulness thereof. 2. That God has given the earth to be
inhabited by his saints. 3. That we are the saints. The aborigines of
the country were accordingly extirpated, to carry out practically these
sentiments.--EDITOR.]

[47] We must remember that the Australians have stiff and glossy hair,
while the hair of the Tasmanians is woolly.

[48] _Dict. Pittor. d’Hist. Natur._, art. _Homme_, t. iv, p. 11, Paris,
1836. See also vol. iii, _Océanie_, by Rienzi; the history of two
Australians, Benilong and Daniel, who after living for some years free,
and pampered among Europeans, threw away their clothing, and went to
live in the woods.

[49] In 1835, the English of Van Diemen’s Land undertook to get rid
altogether of the natives. A regular _battue_ was organised in the
whole island, and in a short time all Tasmanians, without distinction
of age or sex, were exterminated, with the exception of two hundred
and ten individuals, who were transported to the little isle, Flinders
(or, Fourneaux), in Bass’s Straits. This was all the remnant of a race
which, before the arrival of the English, had occupied a territory
nearly as large as Ireland. This dreadful massacre produced a profound
horror in the English Parliament, but it was not thought of to send
these unfortunates back again to their native soil. Measures were,
however, taken to treat them humanely in the isle of Flinders, and to
provide them abundantly with victuals; they were also instructed in
religion. The island is about thirteen leagues in length by seven in
breadth; the refugees had thus no want of space. Nevertheless, of these
two hundred and ten individuals, most of them adults, perished rapidly,
and Count Strzelecki, who visited them in 1842, found only fifty-four.
Within seven years and a few months, only fourteen children wore born.
(Strzelecki, _Physical Description of New South Wales and Van Diemen’s
Land_, pp. 353-357, London, 1845.)

[50] A few months before the extermination of the Tasmanians, an
inhabitant of Hobart Town wrote a letter to Rienzi, copied by him in
_Océanie_, p. 558. The author foresaw that a conflict was inevitable.
He observes, “Several of the children have been sent to the schools of
Hobart Town. When once arrived at the age of puberty, an irresistible
instinct compels them to return to their solitudes.” We know of no
other particulars regarding the attempts made by the English to
civilise the natives. This fact, similar to those of Australia, comes
from a source which cannot be suspected, since the writer of the
letter, as well as M. Rienzi, are well disposed towards the natives.

[51] D’Omalius d’Halloy, _Des Races Humaines ou Éléments
d’Ethnographie_, p. 108, Paris, 1859.

[52] Quoy et Gaimard, _Voy. de l’Astrolabe en 1826-29_, t. i, p. 46,
Paris, 1836.

[53] Gliddon, _The Monogenists and the Polygenists_, 443.

[54] _Voyage au Pole et dans l’Océanie_, t. ii, p. 109, Paris, 1846.

[55] _Loc. cit._, p. 109.

[56] Cunningham, _Two Years in New South Wales_, 3rd edit., v. ii, p.
17, Lond., 1828.

[57] Lessen, _Voyage autour du Monde sur la Corvette la Coquille_,
executed by order of the French Government, t. ii, p. 278, Paris, 1830.
The description of New Holland and its inhabitants fully occupying
nearly eighty pages.

[58] It would be superfluous to indicate the origin of these various
nicknames. We may however mention, that _sterlings_ are the free
settlers born in Europe, and the _currencies_ such as are born in the
colony. The pound sterling was formerly of more value than the pound
currency. _V._ Cunningham, p. 46.

[59] These names have here a special acceptation, and designate by no
means natural or legitimate children.

[60] The _canaries_ are recently arrived convicts, the _government
men_ established convicts, the _emancipists_ liberated convicts, the
_bushrangers_ fugitive convicts.

[61] _Loc. cit._, p. 108.

[62] MacGillivray, _Narration of the Voyage of H.M.S. Rattlesnake_,
vol, i, p. 151, 1852, cited in Waitz, _Anthropologie_, p. 203.

[63] Malte-Brun, _Abrégé de Géographie Universelle_, p. 883, Paris,
1844.

[64] Cunningham, _loc. cit._, vol, ii, p. 65.

[65] Malte-Brun, _Abrégé de Géographie_. In reality the disproportion
between the free individuals of the two sexes was more considerable
than is indicated in the above account, for children are included. But
the number of the children of the free population amounted in 1828, to
6,837, according to Wentworth (Rienzi, _l’Océanie_, p. 543). Supposing
that this number only amounted to 7,000 in 1830--say 3,500 boys and
3,500 girls--there would remain for the adult free population about
10,000 men and 4,000 women,--two women for five men.

[66] Henricq, _Histoire de l’Oceanie_, Paris, 1845.

[67] Lesson, _Voyage autour du Monde_, t. ii, p. 291. It was in 1824
that the author lived in New South Wales. Under the name of Port
Jackson he comprises all the region of which Sydney is the capital.

[68] Cunningham, _loc. cit._, vol. ii, p. 7.

[69] M. Lesson has received such an answer from Bongarri. Cunningham
cites it as a standing joke of the chief, who, he adds, “still keeps on
repeating it.” Lesson, _loc. cit._; Cunningham, _loc. cit._, vol, ii,
p. 18.

[70] Lesson, _loc. cit._, relates that Bongarri had his arm broken,
that the fracture was not consolidated, nevertheless, the Australian
chief used his arm either for rowing or for handling his weapons.

[71] Cunningham, _loc. cit._, vol. ii, p. 8.

[72] MacGillivray, _loc. cit._, vol. i, p. 151. Waitz, _loc. cit._, p.
203.

[73] This passage. extracted from the _Voyage de l’Uranie_, is
textually reproduced in the _Zoologie_ of M. Jacquinot, t. ii, p. 353.

[74] I cannot say whether this is also the case in Van Diemen’s Land.
The subjoined documents have been collected in Australia since 1835,
namely, at a period when there were no longer any Tasmanians in
Tasmania. M. de Rienzi who had terminated his voyages before that time,
said that the Tasmanian women sometimes quitted their husbands to live
with the European fishermen established on the coasts, _L’Oceanie_ t.
iii, p. 547; this is, however, an isolated fact.

[75] P. E. Strzelecki, _Physical Description of New South Wales and Van
Diemen’s Land_, p. 346, London, 1845.

[76] _Monthly Journal of Med. Science, Edinburgh_, 1850, vol. xi, p.
304.

[77] Alexander Harvey (of Aberdeen) on the _Fœtus in Utero_, as
inoculating the maternal with the peculiarities of the paternal
organism, and on the influence thereby exercised by the males on the
constitution and the reproductive power of the female. In the _Monthly
Journal of Med. Science of Edinburgh_, vol. ix, p. 1130; vol. xi, p.
299; and vol. xi, p. 387 (1849-1850).

[78] Carpenter, art. “Varieties of Mankind,” in Todd’s _Cyclopædia of
Anatomy and Physiology_, vol. iv, p. 1341 and 1365.

[79] A mare of Lord Morton, covered by a zebra, produced at first
a zebra mule; covered subsequently by an Arab horse she produced
successively three zebra foals like the first mule.

[80] Thomas R. Heywood Thomson, on the “Reported Incompetency of the
Aboriginal Females of New Holland to Procreate with Native Males after
having Children by a European or White,” in _Monthly Journal of Medical
Science, Edinburgh_, Oct. 1851, vol. xii, p. 354.

[81] Some genera in existing faunas, containing only _one_ species,
are in anterior faunas represented by a number of species now extinct,
and evidently differing from the one species actually existing.
[Compare the two species of existing elephants with the twelve species
of _Elephas_ and thirteen of Mastodon which existed in tertiary
times.--EDITOR.]

[82] There exist at present in northern Africa, down to the Sahara, a
fair-haired race of men, who have been held to be the descendants of
the Vandals. It is certain that no white race has been established in
these parts since the time of Genserich, that is to say, some fourteen
centuries. If so, there would result from it that a sojourn of fourteen
centuries upon the African soil was not sufficient to darken the hair
of the white race. But Dumoulin, taking the text of Procopius for his
guide, had already demonstrated that the light-haired race of northern
Africa had nothing in common with the Vandals; and I have recently
found a passage in the _Périple de la Méditerranée de Syclax_, a work
anterior to Alexander the Great, in which mention is made of a tribe of
_light-haired_ Lybians, who occupied the littoral of the Minor Syrtis,
not far from Mount Auress, where to this day one of the principal
tribes of light-haired Kabyles resides. (See _Bulletins de la Soc.
d’Anthropologie, séance du 16 Février, 1860_.)

[83] [Compare on this subject Professor R. Owen on _The Power of God as
manifested in his Animal Creation_, 12mo, London, 1863, in which the
relations of science to theology are excellently stated.--EDITOR.]

[84] J. Pye Smith, _Relations between the Holy Scriptures and Geology_,
third edition, pp. 398-400. This passage is textually reproduced by
Morton in a letter to the Rev. John Bachmann, on Hybridity, Charleston,
1850, in 8-15. Carpenter, art. “Varieties of Mankind,” in Todd’s
_Cyclopædia of Anatomy and Physiology_, vol. iv, p. 1317, London, 1852.
Eusèbe de Salles, _Histoire générale des Races Humaines_, p. 328,
Paris, 1849.

[85] P. Sagot, _Opinion générale sur l’Origine de la Nature des
Races Humaines; Conciliation des Diversités indélibles avec l’Unité
Historique du Genre Humain_, Paris, 1860.

[86] [Germs of the polygenist doctrine are, however, as old as
Empedocles. See Julius Schvarcz, _Geological Theories of the Greeks_,
4to, London, 1862, for the most philosophical account of these early
attempts.--EDITOR.]

[87] We may be permitted to reproduce here some passage from a
dissertation of this pious slave owner; we extract them from the
_Charleston Medical Journal and Review_, Sept. 1854, vol. ix. pp.
657-659: “All races of men including the Negroes, are of the same
species and origin. The Negro is a striking variety, and at present
permanent, as the numerous varieties of domestic animals. The Negro
will remain what he is, unless his form is altered by intermixture,
the simple idea of which is revolting; his intelligence is greatly
inferior to that of the Caucasians, and he is consequently, from all we
know of him, incapable of governing himself. He has been placed under
our protection (a very pretty word). The vindication of slavery is
contained in the scriptures. The Bible teaches the rights and duties of
masters, in order that the slaves should be treated with justice and
goodness, and it enjoins obedience to slaves.... The Bible furnishes
us with the best weapons of which we can avail ourselves. It shows us
that the ancient Israelites possessed slaves. It determines the duties
of masters and slaves; and Saint Paul writes an epistle to Philemon
to request him to take back a runaway slave. Our representatives
in Congress have drawn their arguments from Holy Writ, and their
adversaries have not ventured to tell them that the historical part
of the Bible (and all that concerns slavery is historical) is false
and uninspired;” and, adds the Rev. John Bachmann, “we can effectually
defend our institutions from the word of God.”

[88] [See, for many valuable hints on this subject, _Savage Africa_, by
W. Winwood Reade, 8vo, London, 1864.--EDITOR.]



INDEX OF SUBJECTS.


    Abyssinian, 9

    Adam, 67

    Alexandria, 2

    Americans, 8, 9, 32

    Anglo-Saxon race, 2

    Antæus, 64

    Apollo de Belvedere, 8

    Arabs, 7, 12, 17, 29

    Araucanos, 55

    Asia Minor, 17

    Australians, 10, 14, 45, 49

    Autochthones, 11


    Basques, 7

    Bass’s Straits, 11

    Bastaards, 3

    Berber, 10, 12

    Bergmaars, 4

    Bible, The, 62

    Bitches, 25

    Blacks, 9

    Bongarri, 52

    Bosjesmen, 3


    Cabres, 29

    Cain, 67

    Cairo, 20

    Caffres, 12, 14

    Cafusos, 3

    Cambyses, 16

    Carolina, South, 33

    Caucasian race, 8, 9, 32, 69

    Caucasus, 20

    Celts, 7, 10, 12, 14

    Charruas, 11

    Children of Mulattoes, 37

    Chinese Mulattoes, 43

    Christian faith, 67

    Cohabitation with White, 57

    Conclusions regarding hybridity, 60

    Confederate States of America, Mulattoes in, 33, 69

    Convict population, 50

    Crossing in human races, 1


    Darfour, 29

    Debauchery, 52

    Deluge, 62, 67

    Dutch, 3


    Egyptian paintings, 62

    Ethiopian race, 30, 32

    Ethiopian right, 71

    Ethnology of France, 17, 22

    Eugenesic breeds, 13;
      hybridity, 16, 19, 21, 26

    Exotic, 11

    Ezekiel, 2


    Fecundity, 23, 40

    Fellahs of Egypt, 16

    Flinders island, 11, 46

    Foulah, 10, 29

    France, 18;
      ethnology of, 22


    Galatia, 17

    Gauls, 17, 22

    Genus _Homo_, 7

    Germans, 7, 12, 14, 18

    Georgia, 21

    Gins, 51

    Great Britain, 18

    Greece, 17

    Greeks, 17

    Griffes, 29

    Griquas, 3, 4

    Guanches, 11


    Hayti, 30

    Hobart Town, 51

    Homœogenesis, 15, 66

    _Homo_, genus, 7

    Homogenesic, 26

    Hottentots, 3, 45, 49

    Hurons, 75

    Hybridity, 16



    Intermixture of certain races of men not eugenesic, 25

    Italy, 18


    Jamaica, 35

    Japan, 11

    Java, Mulattoes in, 39

    Jews, 7, 62


    Kabyles, 7

    Kaffirs, 3

    Kimris, 12, 14, 17, 22

    Koranas, 4


    Lapps, 14

    Lipplappen, 40, 41


    Macedonians, 17

    Malayo-Polynesians, 8

    Malays, 4, 14, 42

    Mamelukes, 17, 20

    Marabouts, 29

    Mares and mules, 56

    Massacre of mongrels (alleged), 52

    Mastiff, 25

    Mehemet Ali, 16

    Mestizoes, 3

    Mexico, 33

    Mingrelia, 21

    Mixed races, 1, 13

    Mongrel breeds, 2, 54

    Mongolians, 8, 9

    Monogenists, 9, 25, 63

    Mop-headed Papuans, 34

    Moravian brothers, 45

    Mosaic narrative, the, 67

    Mulattoes, 2, 29, 30, 33, 42, 54

    Mules, 2


    Namaquas, 3

    Native women ugly and dirty, 49

    Negroes, 6, 10, 14, 29

    New South Wales, 51

    Nicaragua, 39

    Nigritia, 9

    Nile, 20

    Noah, 67

    No Mixed races can subsist, 13


    Ottomans, 21


    Panamá, Mulattoes at, 39

    Papuans, 3, 4, 5, 12

    Penis in Negro, 28

    Pentagenists, 12

    Persians, 17

    Peru, 39

    Pharaonic epoch, 16

    Polygenists, 9, 25

    Polynesians, 75

    Pondicherry, Mulattoes at, 39

    Populations, 50

    Port Jackson, the chief at, 52

    Pou-Endeménés, 5

    Prognathous race of Japan, 11

    Protestant missions, 3

    Puritans of New England, 44


    Quadroons, 29

    Quinteroons, 29


    Race, human, 1

    Recapitulation and Conclusion, 61

    Roman republic, 1

    Romans, 17


    Sclaves, 7

    Seminoles, 55

    Senegal, 29

    Slavery and slave-owners, 67

    Species of animals, mongrels between, 65

    Sterility of cross-breeds, 20

    Sterility of Australian women, 55

    Syllogism, absurd, of the monogenists, 64


    Tasmanian, 45, 49

    Terzeroons, 29

    Turks, 17

    Twins murdered, 53

    Type, definition of, 8


    Unilateral hybridity, 27

    Unitarians, 10

    Uterine canal, 28


    Van Diemen’s Land, 11, 46, 49, 50

    Varamas, 3

    Visigoths, 17


    United States of America, 2


    Waigiou, 3, 6

    West Indies, Mulattoes in, 37

    Whites, 9, 29

    Wolf-dogs, 25


    Yellow fever, 33


    Zamboes, 39



INDEX OF AUTHORS REFERRED TO.


    Bachmann, Reverend John, 68

    Bendyshe, Thomas, 2

    Bérard, Paul, 8, 10, 16

    Bille, Steen, 41

    Blumenbach, 8

    Bory de St. Vincent, 10, 11

    Boudin, 39, 40

    Burchell, 4


    Campbell, 3

    Carmichael, 55

    Carpenter, 56

    Collingwood, J, Frederick, 29

    Cunningham, 48, 50, 52, 53, 54

    Cuvier, 8


    Dampier, 6

    Davis and Thurnam, 3, 7

    Desmoulins, 10, 11

    Dumont d’Urville, 6, 31

    Dumoulin, 63


    Earle, 5

    Empedocles, 69


    Freycinet, 54


    Garnat, 45

    Gaimard, 47

    Gerdy, 16

    Gliddon, 20, 47

    Gobineau, A. de, 1

    Goodsir, 55

    Görtz, 40

    Gützlaff, 43


    Harvey, 44, 55, 56

    Havorinus, 40

    Henricq, 51

    Henricy, 6

    Hotze, Henry, 1


    Jacquinot, 31, 32, 33, 47, 54


    Knox, Robert, 2, 22

    Kolbe, 4


    Latham, Dr. R. G., 5, 6, 11

    Lesson, 5, 6, 47, 48, 51, 52, 53

    Lewis, 37

    Lichtenstein, 3

    Long, 36


    Malte-Brun, 4, 49, 50

    Maunsel, 55

    Maury, A., 5

    McGillivray, 49, 54, 56

    Mohammed-el-Tounsy, 29

    Mollien, 29

    Morton, 10, 67

    Morton (Lord), 56

    Mulattoes, 33


    Nott, Dr., 2, 32


    Omalius d’Halloy, 46

    Owen, Richard, 67


    Peteam, Father, 4

    Philips, Jean, 3, 4

    Pouchet, Georges, 2, 20, 40

    Prichard, Dr., 2, 4, 5, 7, 13


    Quoy et Gaimard, 3, 4, 6

    Quatrefages, 41


    Rafnel, 29

    Reade, W. Winwood, 71

    Rienzi, De, 5, 6, 45, 46


    Sagot, P. de, 68

    Salles, Eusèbe de, 68

    Schvarcz, Julius, 69

    Seemann, Berthold, 39

    Serres, Marcel de, 28

    Smith, Hamilton, 38

    Smith, Pye, 67

    Spix and Martius, 3

    Squier, 40

    Strzelecki (Count), 46, 54, 57


    Ten Rhyne, 3

    Thomson, 57

    Thompson, 3

    Thunberg, 4

    Truter and Somerville, 3

    Tschudi, 40


    Van Amringe, 38

    Volney, 20


    Waitz, Theodor, 29, 36, 38, 39, 41, 42, 49, 52, 53, 54

    Wentworth, 51


    Yvan, 40



ERRATA.


  Page 21 line 6 _for_ Mongrelia _read_ Mingrelia.
  ”    31 “    16 “   Jacquenot “   Jacquinot.
  ”    47 “    12 “   Gaymard “     Gaimard.
  ”    48 in _note_ 2 “   Lessen “    Lesson.
  ”    49 “     6 “   Essingen “    Essington.
  ”    63 “    32 “   _faci_ “        _foci_.



FINIS.



T. RICHARDS, 37, GREAT QUEEN STREET.



REGULATIONS

OF THE

Anthropological Society of London.


1. The Society shall be styled “THE ANTHROPOLOGICAL SOCIETY OF LONDON.”

[Sidenote: Object.]

2. THE ANTHROPOLOGICAL SOCIETY OF LONDON is formed for the purpose of
promoting the study of Anthropology.

[Sidenote: Constitution.]

3. The Society shall consist of a President, Four Vice-Presidents,
Fellows, Honorary Fellows, Corresponding Members, and Local Secretaries.

[Sidenote: Government.]

4. The Government of the Society shall be vested in the Council; and
the Council elected as hereinafter directed shall consist of the
President, the Vice-Presidents, a Treasurer, two Honorary Secretaries,
a Foreign Secretary, and fourteen Fellows.

[Sidenote: Election of Council.]

5. The President, Vice-Presidents, Treasurer, Secretaries, and ordinary
Members of the Council, shall be elected by ballot at the Annual
General Meeting; and two at least of the ordinary Councillors shall
retire from office, annually: the retiring Members to be selected by
the Council, at the Anniversary Meeting.

[Sidenote: Privileges of Council.]

6. If, in the interval between two Annual Meetings, any vacancy in the
Council shall occur, the Council shall have the power of appointing
some Fellow of the Society to fill such vacancy. Particular subjects
may be referred by the Council to Committees, and such Committees shall
report to the Council the result of their proceedings.

[Sidenote: Nomination of Fellows.]

7. Every person desirous of admission in the Society as a Fellow,
shall be proposed and recommended, agreeably to the Form No. 1 in the
Appendix; which Form must be subscribed by at least one Fellow, who
shall certify his personal knowledge of such Candidate.

8. Every Candidate’s recommendation must be delivered to the Secretary,
and shall by him be submitted to the Council, at the next meeting.

[Sidenote: Election of Fellows.]

9. The Council shall proceed to the election by a show of hands, or by
ballot, if any Member demand it. The voting shall take place at the
same Council Meeting as that on which the Candidate is proposed, and no
person shall be considered as elected unless he have three-fourths of
the votes in his favour.

[Sidenote: Admission of Fellows.]

10. Every person so elected, having subscribed the Form No. 2 in the
Appendix, shall be admitted by the Chairman at the first Ordinary
Meeting at which he is present, according to the following Form:--“In
the name, and by the authority of the Anthropological Society of
London, I admit you a fellow thereof.”

[Sidenote: Privileges of Fellows.]

11. The Fellows have the right to be present, to state their opinion,
and to vote at all general Meetings; to propose candidates for
admission into the Society; to introduce two Visitors at the Ordinary
Meetings of the Society; and to have transmitted to them all official
documents which the Council may cause to be printed for the use of the
Society: and, under such limitations as the Council may deem expedient,
to have personal access to the Library and all other public rooms in
the occupation of the Society, and to borrow books, maps, plates,
drawings, or specimens, belonging to the Society.

12. All the Fellows are eligible to be Members of the Council and
Officers of the Society.

[Sidenote: Contributions of Fellows.]

13. Each Fellow shall pay an Annual Contribution of two guineas, which
may at any time be compounded for by a single payment of £21.

14. The Annual Contributions shall become due, in advance, on the First
day of January in each year.

15. Whenever a Fellow shall be three months in arrear in the payment of
his annual contributions, the Treasurer shall forward to him a Letter,
of the Form No. 3, or of the Form No. 4 in the Appendix, according as
he shall reside in London or in the Country.

16. If the arrears be not paid within one month after the forwarding of
such Letter, the Treasurer shall report such default to the Council,
and the Council shall use its discretion in erasing the name of the
defaulter from the List of Fellows; and he shall not be allowed to
attend the Meetings of the Society, nor to enjoy any of its privileges
and advantages, until his arrears be paid. No Member of the Society
whose subscription is three months in arrear, and who shall have
received notice from the Treasurer, shall be allowed to attend any
General or Council Meetings. At the expiration of six months, the name
of the defaulter shall be suspended in the Meeting Room.

[Sidenote: Retiring of Fellows.]

17. Any Fellow may withdraw from the Society, by signifying his wish
to do so, by letter under his own hand, addressed to one of the
Secretaries. Such Fellow shall, however, be liable to the Contribution
of the year in which he signifies his wish to withdraw; and shall
continue liable for the Annual Contribution until he shall have
discharged all sums due by him to the Society; and shall have returned
all books, or other property, borrowed by him of the Society; or shall
have made full compensation for the same, if lost or not forthcoming.

[Sidenote: Expulsion of Fellows.]

18. Should there appear cause, in the opinion of the Council, for the
expulsion from the Society of any Fellow, a Special General Meeting
shall be called by the Council for that purpose, and if three-fourths
of those voting agree, by ballot, that such Fellow be expelled, the
President, or other Fellow in the Chair, shall declare the same
accordingly, whereupon his name shall be erased from the List of
Fellows.

[Sidenote: Election of Honorary Fellows, Corresponding Members, Local
Secretaries, etc.]

19. The Honorary Fellows, Corresponding Members, and Local Secretaries,
shall be elected by the Council, under the same conditions as laid down
in Par. 9, for ordinary Fellows, and such elections shall be announced
to the Society at its next ordinary Meeting.

[Sidenote: Annual General Meetings.]

20. A General Meeting shall be held annually in January, to receive the
report of the Council on the state of the Society, and to deliberate
thereon; and to discuss and determine such matters as may be brought
forward by the Council relative to the affairs of the Society. These
propositions having been previously read as a whole shall then be
considered paragraph by paragraph. Also, to elect the Officers for
the ensuing year. The Chairman shall cause to be read the regulations
relating to the Anniversary General Meetings; he shall cause to be
distributed a sufficient number of balloting-lists, according to
the Form No. 5 in the Appendix; and he shall appoint two or more
Scrutineers, from among the Fellows present, to superintend the ballot
during its progress, and to report the results to the Meeting: the
ballot shall close at the expiration of one hour. No rule shall be
altered unless two-thirds of the voters concur in the proposed change.

21. Each Fellow voting must deliver his balloting-list, folded up,
to one of the Scrutineers, who shall immediately put it into the
balloting-box. And the name of the Fellow so delivering his list shall
be taken down by the Secretary, or by some person appointed to do so.

[Sidenote: Special General Meetings.]

22. The Council shall call a Special General Meeting of the Society
when it seems to them necessary, or when required by any ten Fellows so
to do.

23. Every such requisition, duly signed by ten or more Fellows, must
specify, in the form of a Resolution, the object intended to be
submitted to the Meeting.

24. The requisition, the motion, and the notice of the Special Meeting,
shall be suspended in the Library one week, and a copy sent to all
Fellows one week previous to such Meeting; and at the Meeting, the
discussion shall be confined to the object specified in the motion.

[Sidenote: Ordinary General Meetings.]

25. The Ordinary Meetings of the Society shall be held on Tuesdays in
each month from November to June, both inclusive; and a printed card of
such Meetings shall be delivered to each Fellow before the commencement
of the session.

26. Business shall commence at Eight o’clock in the evening precisely,
when the minutes of the preceding Ordinary Meeting shall be read.

27. At the Ordinary Meetings, the order of business shall be as
follows:--The minutes of the last Meeting shall be real aloud by one of
the Secretaries, and if found correct, shall be signed by the Chairman;
the presents made to the Society since their last meeting shall be
announced; communications shall be announced and read; after which,
the persons present shall be invited by the Chairman to deliver aloud,
from their places, their opinions on the communications which have been
read, and on the specimens or drawings which have been exhibited at
that meeting.

28. Every Fellow shall have the privilege of introducing two Visitors
at each Ordinary Meeting of the Society, whose names, and that of
the Fellow introducing them, shall be entered in a book kept for the
purpose.

29. At an ordinary meeting, no question relating to the Rules or
management of the Society shall be introduced.

[Sidenote: Council Meetings.]

30. The Council shall meet on some convenient day in the week of
each Ordinary Meeting. And the President or any three Members of the
Council, may at any time call a Special Meeting of the Council, to
which the whole Council shall be summoned.

31. In all Meetings of the Council, five to be a quorum; all questions
to be decided by vote, unless a ballot be demanded; and a decision
of the majority to be considered as the decision of the Meeting; the
Chairman having, in case of an equality, the casting-vote.

[Sidenote: Duties of Council.]

32. The duties of the Council shall be to see that Minutes of its
proceedings are taken, during their progress, by the Secretary, or, in
case of his absence, by some Fellow present, whom the Chairman shall
appoint for the occasion; which Minutes shall be afterwards copied
into a Minute-Book kept for that purpose, read at the next Meeting of
the Council, and, if found correct, signed by the Chairman. Also to
examine, present, and cause to be read at the anniversary Meeting, a
Report of the accounts and of the state of the affairs of the Society
for the preceding year. The Council shall also have the general
superintendence of all the publications of the Society; and shall
select works to be translated, and appoint some member of the Society
to edit the same. The Council shall also act for the Society in any
matter which is not specified in these regulations. It is the duty of
the Council to prepare the House-list of retiring Members of Council,
and also of Candidates to be recommended at the Anniversary general
Meeting to fill up the vacancies.

[Sidenote: Duties of President.]

33. The President shall take the Chair at every Meeting of the Society,
or of the Council, at which he may be present: he shall keep order in
all proceedings; submit questions to the Meeting; and perform the other
customary duties of a Chairman.

34. It is his duty to execute, and cause to be executed, the
Regulations of the Society; to see that all the Officers of the
Society, and Members of the Council and of Committees, perform the
duties assigned to, or undertaken by them respectively; to call for
Reports and Accounts, from Committees and persons; to cause, of his own
authority, and when necessary, Special Meetings of the Council and of
Committees to be summoned.

35. When prevented from being present at any Meeting, or from otherwise
attending to the current business of the Society, he will be expected
to give timely notice thereof to one of the Vice-Presidents, or, in
their absence, to some other Member of the Council, in order that his
place may be properly supplied.

[Sidenote: Duties of Vice-Presidents.]

36. One of the Vice-Presidents, if present, shall supply the place of
the President when absent.

[Sidenote: Duties of Treasurer.]

37. The Treasurer has special charge of all Accounts; and shall see
to the collecting all sums of money due to the Society. And he shall
report, from time to time, to the Council the names of all such Fellows
as shall be in arrear, together with the sums due respectively by each.

38. He shall, with the consent of the Council, appoint a Collector,
for whom he shall be responsible, and who shall receive a reasonable
remuneration; and the money collected shall immediately be paid to the
Bankers of the Society.

39. In concert with the Secretaries, the Treasurer shall keep a
complete List of the Fellows of the Society, with the name and address
of each accurately set forth; which List, with the other Books of
Account, shall be laid on the table at every Ordinary Meeting of the
Council.

40. He also shall pay all accounts due by the Society, after they shall
have been examined and approved by the Council. All drafts on the
Banker shall be signed at a Council Meeting by the Chairman, Treasurer,
and one of the Secretaries. And the Accounts of the Treasurer shall
be annually audited by two Fellows, proposed by the President, and
approved by the Ordinary Meeting held next before the Anniversary.

[Sidenote: Duties of Secretaries.]

41. The Secretaries shall have a general charge of all the
arrangements, and of the execution of all the orders, of the Council
and of the Society. They shall conduct the correspondence; attend the
Meetings; take Minutes of the proceedings during their progress; and,
at the commencement of every Meeting, read the Minutes of the previous
Meeting. At the Ordinary Meetings they shall announce the presents
received since the last Meeting. They shall make a note of the Papers
read at the Ordinary Meetings, to be inserted in the Minutes; and see
that all such Minutes of the proceedings, whether of the Society or of
the Council, are entered in the several Minute-Books. They shall also
make the Indexes and edit the Society’s Transactions.

42. The Secretaries shall have also the immediate superintendence of
all persons employed by the Society; and charge of its Books, Papers,
Maps, Specimens, and Drawings. They shall see that all accessions to
them are properly placed and catalogued.

43. Conjointly with the Treasurer, they shall have charge of the
accounts of the Society. And no account shall be brought before the
Council, until they or one of them, attest in writing that they have
examined it, and believe it to be accurate.

[Sidenote: Property of the Society.]

44. The whole of the property and effects of the Society, of what kind
soever, shall be vested in three Trustees, for its use: one of whom
shall always be the Treasurer for the time being; and the other two
shall be chosen at a General Meeting of the Society.

[Sidenote: Original Papers.]

45. Every Paper which may be presented to the Society shall, in
consequence of such presentation, be considered as the property of the
Society, unless there shall have been any previous engagement with
its author to the contrary: and the Council may publish the same in
any way, and at any time, that they may think proper. But should the
Council refuse or neglect, within a reasonable time, to publish such
Paper, the author shall have a right to copy the same, and publish it
under his own directions. No other person, however, shall publish any
Paper belonging to the Society, without the previous consent of the
Council.


APPENDIX.

FORM NO. 1.

A. B. [here state the Christian Name, Surname, and usual place of
Residence of the Candidate] being desirous of admission into the
Anthropological Society, I propose and recommend him as a proper person
to become a Fellow thereof.

  day of                18


  -------------------------- from personal knowledge.


FORM NO. 2.

I, the Undersigned, being elected a Fellow of the Anthropological
Society, do hereby promise that I will be governed by the Rules of
the said Society, as they are now formed, or as they may be hereafter
altered or amended: provided, however, that whenever I shall signify,
in writing to the Society, that I am desirous of withdrawing my name
therefrom, I shall (after the payment of Annual Contributions which may
be due by me at that period, and after giving up any Books, Papers, or
other property belonging to the Society, in my possession or entrusted
to me,) be free from this obligation.

  Witness my hand, this

  day of                18


FORM NO. 3.

SIR,

I am directed by the Council of the Anthropological Society to inform
you, that, according to their Books, the sum of ---------------- was
due on account of your Annual Contribution on the First day of January
last; the payment of which, as early as possible, is hereby requested.

I have also to inform you, that A. B. has been appointed Collector to
the Society; and that in order to save you the trouble of sending your
Contribution, he has been directed by the Council to wait upon you for
the same.

  I have the honour to be, Sir,
  Your most obedient Servant,

  ----------------------
  _Treasurer_.


FORM NO. 4.

SIR,

I am directed by the Council of the Anthropological Society to inform
you, that, according to their Books, the sum of ------------------ was
due on account of your Annual Contribution on the First day of January
last: the payment of which, as early as possible, is hereby requested.

I have also to suggest, that the amount of your Contribution can be
conveniently remitted by a Post-Office Order, made payable at the
General Post Office, London, to my order.

  I have the honour to be, Sir,
  Your most obedient Servant,

  ----------------------
  _Treasurer_.

FORM NO. 5.

  +-----------------+-----------+-----------+-----------------------+
  |                 |           |           |  Members proposed to  |
  |                 |           |           |        come in.       |
  |    Officers.    |  Present  |  Members  +-----------+-----------+
  |                 | Council.  | going out.|   By the  |  By any   |
  |                 |           |           |  Council. |Dissentient|
  |                 |           |           |           |  Member.  |
  +-----------------+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+
  |President        |           |           |           |           |
  |                 |           |           |           |           |
  |Vice-President   |           |           |           |           |
  |Vice-President   |           |           |           |           |
  |Vice-President   |           |           |           |           |
  |Vice-President   |           |           |           |           |
  |                 |           |           |           |           |
  |Secretary        |           |           |           |           |
  |Secretary        |           |           |           |           |
  |                 |           |           |           |           |
  |Foreign Secretary|           |           |           |           |
  |                 |           |           |           |           |
  |Treasurer        |           |           |           |           |
  |                 |           |           |           |           |
  |Councillor       |           |           |           |           |
  |--               |           |           |           |           |
  |--               |           |           |           |           |
  |--               |           |           |           |           |
  |--               |           |           |           |           |
  |--               |           |           |           |           |
  |--               |           |           |           |           |
  |--               |           |           |           |           |
  |--               |           |           |           |           |
  |--               |           |           |           |           |
  |--               |           |           |           |           |
  |--               |           |           |           |           |
  |--               |           |           |           |           |
  |--               |           |           |           |           |
  +-----------------+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+

  FOURTH LIST

  OF THE

  FOUNDATION FELLOWS

  OF THE

  Anthropological Society of London.


  (_Corrected to March 15th, 1864_)


ANTHROPOLOGICAL SOCIETY OF LONDON.

OFFICERS AND COUNCIL FOR 1864.



President.

  JAMES HUNT, ESQ., Ph.D., F.S.A., F.R.S.L., Foreign Associate of the
  Anthropological Society of Paris, Honorary Fellow of the Ethnological
  Society of London, Corresponding Member of the Upper Hesse Society
  for Natural and Medical Science, etc.

Vice-Presidents.

CAPTAIN RICHARD F. BURTON, H.M. Consul at Fernando Po, etc. SIR CHARLES
NICHOLSON, BART, D.C.L., LL.D., F.G.S., etc. THE DUKE OF ROUSSILLON.

Honorary Secretaries.

C. CARTER BLAKE, ESQ., F.G.S., Foreign Associate of the Anthropological
Society of Paris, etc.

J. FREDERICK COLLINGWOOD, ESQ., F.R.S.L., F.G.S., Foreign Associate of
the Anthropological Society of Paris.

Honorary Foreign Secretary.

ALFRED HIGGINS, ESQ., Foreign Associate of the Anthropological Society
of Paris.

Treasurer.

RICHARD STEPHEN CHARNOOK, ESQ., F.S.A., F.R.G.S., Foreign Associate of
the Anthropological Society of Paris.

Council.

  HUGH J. C. BEAVAN, ESQ., F.R.G.S.

  THOMAS BENDYSHE, ESQ., M.A.

  WILLIAM BOLLAERT, ESQ., F.R.G.S., Corr. Mem. Univ. Chile, and Ethno.
  Socs. London and New York.

  S. EDWIN COLLINGWOOD, ESQ., F.Z.S.

  GEORGE DUNCAN GIBB, ESQ., M.A., M.D., F.G.S.

  J. NORMAN LOCKYER, ESQ., F.R.A.S., M.R.I.

  S. E. B. BOUVERIE-PUSEY, ESQ., F.E.S.

  W. WINWOOD READE, ESQ., F.R.G.S., Corr. Mem. Geographical Society of
  Paris.

  GEORGE E. ROBERTS, ESQ.

  CHARLES ROBERT DES RUFFIÈRES, ESQ., F.G.S., F.E.S.

  DR. BERTHOLD SEEMANN, F.L.S.

  WILLIAM TRAVERS, ESQ., M.R.C.S.

  WILLIAM SANDYS WRIGHT VAUX, ESQ., M.A., F.S.A., F.R.S.L., President
  of the Numismatic Society of London.

  GEORGE WITT, ESQ., F.R.S.

  FOURTH LIST

  OF THE

  FOUNDATION FELLOWS

  OF THE

  ANTHROPOLOGICAL SOCIETY OF LONDON.

_The names with * before them are those of Fellows who have compounded
for their Annual Subscription._

_Those Fellows to whose names the ¶ is attached, have contributed
Papers._

† _Members of Council._

‡ _These Fellows are also Local Secretaries._


  à Beckett, Arthur W., Esq. _17 King Street, St. James’s._

  Adlam, William, Esq. _9 Brook Street, Bath._

  Arden, R. S., Esq. _Sunbury Park, Middlesex._

  Armitage, W., Esq. _Townfield House, Altrincham._

  Armitstead, T. B., Esq. _Padnoller House, Nether Stowey, Bridgewater._

  Arundell, Rodolph, Esq. _14 Montagu Place, Montagu Square_, W.

  Atkinson, Henry George, Esq., F.G.S. _18 Upper Gloucester Place_, N.W.

  Austin, Thomas, Esq., M.D. _District Lunatic Asylum, Inverness._

  Austin, William Baird, Esq., M.D. _St. Andrew’s, Fife._

  Avery, John Gould, Esq. _40 Belsize Park_, N.W.


  * Babington, C. Cardale, Esq., M.A., F.R.S., F.L.S., F.G.S., Sec.
  Cambridge Phil. Soc., Prof. Botany, Cambridge. _St. John’s College,
  Cambridge._

  Babington, William, Esq. _Cameroons River._

  Baker, J. P., Esq., M.R.C.S. _6 York Place, Portman Square_, W.

  Barr, W. R., Esq. _Park Mills, Stockport._

  Barr, Joseph Henry, Esq., M.R.C.S. _Ardwick Green, Manchester._

  Bartlett, Edw., Esq. _8 King William Street_, E.C.

  Beale, John S., Esq. _17 Paddington Green_, W.

  † Beavan, Hugh J. C., Esq., F.R.G.S. _13 Blandford Square, Regent’s
  Park; and Grafton Club_, W.

  Beardsley, Amos, Esq., F.L.S., F.G.S. _The Grange, near Ulverstone,
  Lancashire._

  Beddoe, John, Esq., M.D., F.E.S., Foreign Associate of the
  Anthropological Society of Paris. _Clifton._

  †¶ Bendyshe, Thos., Esq., M. A. _7 Old Square, Lincoln’s Inn_, W.C.

  Benson, W. F. G., Esq. _115 Kensington, Liverpool._

  Bertram, George, Esq. _Sciennes Street, Edinburgh._

  Best, Captain. _Convict Prison, Princetown, Dartmoor, Devon._

  Blackstone, Alan C., Esq., M.A., F.R.G.S. _5 Henrietta Street, Covent
  Garden_, W.C.

  †¶ Blake, Charles Carter, Esq., F.G.S., Foreign Associate of the
  Anthropological Society of Paris, Member of the Comité d’Archéologie
  Americaine de France. HONORARY SECRETARY. _4 St. Martin’s Place_,
  W.C.; _and 43 Argyll Square_, W.C.

  Blakely, T. A., Esq. _34 Montpellier Square_, S.W.

  Bledsoe, A. T., Esq., LL.D. _33 Argyll Road, Kensington._

  †¶ Bollaert, William, Esq., F.R.G.S., Corr. Mem. Ethno. Soc., London,
  New York and Univ. Chile. _21A Hanover Square_, W.

  Bond, Walter M., Esq. _The Argory, Moy, Ireland._

  Bonney, Rev. T. George, M.A., F.G.S. _St. John’s College, Cambridge._

  Boase, Henry S., Esq., M.D., F.R.S., F.G.S. _Claverhouse, near
  Dundee._

  ‡ Bosworth, The Rev. Joseph, D.D., Trin. Coll., Cambridge, and of
  Christ Church, Oxford, Prof. Anglo-Saxon, Dr. Phil. of Leyden,
  F.R.S., F.S.A., F.R.S.L., Corresponding Member of the Royal Institute
  of the Netherlands, etc., etc. _Oxford, and Water Stratford,
  Buckingham_.

  Boulton, George, Esq. _1 Gordon Square_, W.C.

  † Bouverie-Pusey, S. E. B., Esq., F.E.S. _16 Chesham Place_, S. W.

  Boreham, W. W., Esq., F.R.A.S. _Haverhill, Suffolk._

  Boys, Jacob, Esq. _Grand Parade, Brighton._

  Braggiotti, George M., Esq. _New York._

  Brainsford, C., Esq., M.D. _Haverhill, Suffolk._

  Brebner, James, Esq. _1 St. Albyn Place, Aberdeen._

  Brickwood, J. S., Esq. _Claremont House, Tunbridge Wells._

  Brodhurst, Bernard Edward, Esq., F.R.C.S. _20 Grosvenor St._, W.

  Brooke, Rajah Sir James, K.C.B. _Ehrenberg Hall, Torquay_; _and
  Burraton, Horrabridge, Devon_.

  Brown, Edward, Esq. _Oak Hill, Surbiton Hill._

  Brown, E. O., Esq. _Chemical Department, Royal Arsenal, Woolwich._

  Bunkell, Henry Christopher, Esq. _1 Penn Road, Caledonian Road,
  Holloway_, N.

  Burke, Luke, Esq., F.E.S. _11 Eton Street, Gloucester Road_, N.W.


  †¶ Burton, Captain Richard Fenwick, F.R.G.S., H.M. Consul, Fernando
  Po. VICE-PRESIDENT. 14 _Montagu Place, Montagu Square_, W.; _and
  Fernando Po._

  Butler, Henry, Esq. _Admiralty, Somerset House._

  * Buxton, Charles, Esq. _7 Grosvenor Crescent_, S.W.

  Byham, George, Esq. _War Office, Pall Mall_, S.W.; _and Ealing_.


  * Cabbell, Benjamin Bond, Esq., F.R.S., F.S.A. _52 Portland Place._

  Cameron, Captain, H.M. Consul. _Mapowah, Abyssinia._

  Campbell, Henry, Esq. _6 Claremont Gardens, Glasgow._

  Campbell, Montgomery, Esq. _Vernon Place, Scarborough._

  Caplin, Dr. J. F. _9 York Place, Portman Square_, W.

  Capper, J., Esq. _9 Mincing Lane, E.C._

  Cartwright, Samuel, Esq., jun. _32 Old Burlington Street_, W.

  Carulla, Facundo, Esq. _182 Higher Cambridge Street, Manchester._

  Cassell, John, Esq. _La Belle Sauvage Yard, Ludgate Hill._

  Chambers, Charles Harcourt, Esq., F.E.S. _2 Chesham Place_, S.W.

  Charlton, Henry, Esq. _Birmingham._

  Chamberlain, William, Esq. _4 Hervey Terrace, Brighton._

  Chance, F., Esq. _48 Eversfield Place, St. Leonard’s on Sea._

  †¶ Charnock, Richard Stephen, Esq., F.S.A., F.R.G.S., F.R.S.S.A.,
  Foreign Associate of the Anthropological Society of Paris, Foundation
  Member of the Royal Society of Northern Antiquaries, Corresponding
  Member of the New England Historico-Genealogical Society. TREASURER.
  4_ St. Martin’s Place_, W.C.; and _8 Gray’s Inn Square_, W.C.

  ‡ Chignell, Hendrick Agnis, Esq. _47 York Road, Brighton._

  Clare, Rev. Henry. _Crossens, North Meots, Ormskirk._

  Clarendon, The Right Honourable The Earl of, K.G., G.C.B., F.R.S.
  _Grosvenor Crescent_, W.

  Clark, H., Esq., M.D., F.S.A. _3 Upper Morla Place, Southampton._

  Clement, William James, Esq., F.E.S. _The Council House, Shrewsbury._

  Clodd, Edw., Esq. _2 Glamorgan Villas, Leytonstone Road, Stratford_,
  E.

  Cock, John, Esq., jun., F.R.H.S., M.S.A. _South Molton._

  Cockings, W. Spencer, Esq., F.E.S. 20 _University Street_, W.C.

  Collier, J, Payne, Esq. _Maidenhead._

  † Collingwood, J. Frederick, Esq., F.R.S.L., F.G.S., Foreign
  Associate of the Anthropological Society of Paris. HONORARY
  SECRETARY. _4 St. Martin’s Place_, W.C.; and _54 Gloucester Street,
  Belgrave Road_, S.W.

  † Collingwood, S. Edwin, Esq., F.Z.S. _26 Buckingham Place,
  Brighton._


  Cooke, W. Fothergill, Esq. _Electric Telegraph Office, London._

  Cooper, Sir Daniel, Bart. _20 Prince’s Gardens_, W.

  * Cozens, J. F. W. _Larkbere Lodge, Clapham Park._

  Crowley, Henry, Esq. _Corporation Street, Manchester._

  Critchett, George, Esq. _75 Harley Street, Cavendish Square._

  Crolly, J. M., Ph.D. _Trimdon._

  Croxford, George Rayner, Esq. _Forest Gate, Essex_, E.

  * Cuthbert, J. R., Esq. _Chapel Street, Liverpool._


  Daniel, Hurst, Esq. _Buxton House, Highbury Hill_, N.

  Davey, J. G., Esq., M.D. _Northwoods, near Bristol._

  Davis, J. Barnard, Esq., M.D., F.S.A., Foreign Associate of the
  Anthropological Society of Paris. _Shelton, Staffordshire._

  Dawson, George, Esq., M.A., F.G.S. _Shenstone, Lichfield._

  De Horne, John, Esq. _137 Offord Road, Barnsbury Park, London_, N.

  Dickinson, Henry, Esq., Colonial Surgeon. _Ceylon._

  * Dingle, Rev. John, M.A. _Lanchester, near Durham_; _and 13 North
  Grove West, Mildmay Park, Islington_.

  Donaldson, Prof. John, Advocate. _Marchfield House, near Edinburgh._

  Drake, Francis, Esq., F.G.S. _Leicester._

  ‡Du Chaillu, M. Paul Belloni, F.R.G.S. _129 Mount Street_, W.

  Duggan, J. R., Esq. _42 Watling Street_, E.C.


  Eassie, William, Esq., F.G.S. _High Orchard House, Gloucester._

  Evans, John, Esq., F.G.S., F.S.A., Secretary to the Numismatic
  Society of London. _Nash Mills, Hemel Hempstead._

  ‡Fairbank, Frederick Royston, Esq., M.D., F.E.S. _St. Mary’s Terrace,
  Hulme, Manchester._

  Farrar, Rev. F. W., M.A., F.E.S. _Harrow_, N.W.

  Ferguson, William, Esq., F.L.S., F.G.S. (Of Kinnendy, Ellon,
  Aberdeen.) _2 St. Aidan’s Terrace, Birkenhead._

  Firebrace, Frederick, Esq., Lieutenant Royal Engineers. _Shorncliffe._

  Fleming, Captain, 3rd Hussars. _Care of E. S. Codd, Esq.,_ 36 _Craven
  Street, Strand._

  Flight, Walter, Esq. _Queenwood College, near Stockbridge, Hants._

  Forrester, Joseph James, Esq. _6 St. Helen’s Place_, E.C.

  Foster, M., Esq., M.D. _Huntingdon._

  Fraser, A. A., Esq. _14 Limerston Street, King’s Road, Chelsea_, S.W.

  Frenler, H. Albert, Esq., M.D. _North Street, St. Andrew’s._

  Fuller, Stephen, Esq. _1 Eaton Place_, S.W.



  Garrett, William H., Esq. _98 Guildford Street_, W.C.

  Gatty, Charles Henry, Esq., M.A., F.L.S., F.G.S., F.C.P.S. _Felbridge
  Park, East Grinstead, Sussex._

  Georgei, Professor. _18 Wimpole Street, Cavendish Square_, W.

  †Gibb, George Duncan, Esq., M.D., M.A., F.G.S. _19A Portman Street,
  Portman Square_, W.

  Glaucopides, Spyridon, Esq. _7 Maitland Park Crescent, Haverstock
  Hill._

  ‡¶ Gore, Richard Thomas, Esq., F.R.C.S., F.E.S. _6 Queen’s Square,
  Bath._

  Green, Sidney Faithhorn, Esq. _Montagu House, Eltham, Kent._

  Gregor, Rev. Walter, M.A. _Pitsligo Manse, Rosehearty, Aberdeenshire._

  Gregory, J, R., Esq. _25 Golden Square_, W.

  Griffits, James Oliff, Esq. _3 Middle Temple Lane._

  ¶ Guppy, H. F. J., Esq. _Port of Spain, Trinidad._


  Hammond, C. D., Esq., M.D. _11 Charlotte Street, Bedford Sq._, W.C.

  Hancock, H. J. B., Esq. _Duke’s Hill, Bagshot._

  Harland, Charles J., Esq. _Madeira Place, Torquay._

  Hepworth, John Mason, Esq., J.P. _Ackworth, Yorkshire._

  † Higgins, Alfred, Esq., HONORARY FOREIGN SECRETARY. Foreign Associate
  of the Anthropological Society of Paris. _4 St. Martin’s Place_,
  W.C.; _and 26 Manchester Street_, W.

  Higgins, James, Esq. _5 Hopwood Terrace, Manchester._

  Hodge, Thomas, Esq. _South Street, St. Andrew’s._

  Hodgson, B. W., Esq. _The Rangers, Dursley._

  Horton, W. I. S., Esq. _Talbot Villa, Rugeley._

  Hotze, Henry, Esq., C.S.A. _17 Savile Row._

  Hunt, G. S. Lennox, Esq., F.E.S., H.B.M. Consul. _Pernambuco._

  †¶ Hunt, James, Esq., Ph.D., F.S.A., F.R.S.L., Foreign Associate
  of the Anthropological Society of Paris, Corr. Mem. of Upper Hesse
  Society for Natural and Medical Science, Honorary Fellow of the
  Ethnological Society of London. PRESIDENT. _4 St. Martin’s Place_,
  W.C.; _and Ore House, near Hastings_.

  Hunt, John, Esq. _42 North Parade, Grantham._

  Hutchinson, Jonathan, Esq., F.R.C.S. _4 Finsbury Circus_, E.C.

  Hutchinson, T. J., Esq., F.R.G.S., F.R.S.L., F.E.S., Membre Titulaire
  de l’Institut d’Afrique à Paris, Corresponding Member of the Literary
  and Philosophic Society of Liverpool. _H.B.M. Consul at Rosario,
  Argentine Confederation._


  Ioannides, A., Esq., M.D. _8 Chepstow Place, Bayswater_, W.


  Jackson, Henry, Esq., F.E.S. _St. James’ Row, Sheffield._

  Jackson, H. W., Esq., F.R.C.S. _Surrey County Asylum, Tooting._

  Jackson, J. Hughlings, Esq., M.D., M.R.C.P., Professor of Physiology
  at the London Hospital Medical College. _5 Queen Square, Russell
  Square_, W.C.

  ‡ Jackson, J. W., Esq. _39 St. George’s Road, Glasgow._

  Jardine, Sir William, Bart., F.R.S., F.L.S. _Jardine Hall, Lockerby._

  Jarratt, The Rev. John, M.A. _North Cave, Brough, Yorkshire._

  Jenyns, The Rev. Leonard, M.A., F.L.S., F.G.S. _Darlington Place,
  Bathwick, Bath._

  Jones, W. T., Esq. _1 Montague Place, Kentish Town_, N.W.


  Kendall, T. M., Esq. _King’s Lynn, Norfolk._

  ‡ King, Kelburne, Esq., M.D., Lecturer on Anatomy, Hull; Curator of
  the Anatomical Museum of the Hull Literary and Philosophical Society.
  _27 George Street, Hull._


  La Barte, Rev. W. W., M.A. _Lexden, Colchester._

  Lancaster, John, Esq., F.G.S. _Hindleg Hall, near Wigan._

  Laurence, John Zachariah, Esq., F.R.C.S. _30 Devonshire Street,
  Portland Place_, W.

  Lawrence, Frederick, Esq. _Essex Court, Temple_, E.C.

  ¶ Lee, Richard, Esq. _45 Abington Street, Northampton._

  Lees, Samuel, Esq. _Portland Place, Ashton-under-Lyne._

  Lister, John, Esq., F.G.S. _28 Porchester Terrace, Bayswater_; _and
  Shebdon Hall, Yorkshire_.

  † Lockyer, J. Norman, Esq., F.R.A.S., M.R.I. _War Office, Pall Mall_,
  S.W.; _and_ _47 Drayton Grove, Brompton_, S.W.

  Longman, William, Esq., F.G.S., F.R.S.L., F.R.G.S. _36 Hyde Park
  Square_, W.

  Lonsdale, Henry, Esq., M.D. _Carlisle._

  Lord, Edward, Esq. _Canal Street Works, Todmorden._

  Lybbe, Philip Powys Lybbe, Esq., M.P. _88 St. James’s Street._


  Macclelland, James, Esq. _73 Kensington Gardens Square, Bayswater._

  Macdonald, William, Esq., M.D., F.L.S., Professor of Nat. Hist.
  _University, St. Andrew’s._

  Mackie, Samuel Joseph, Esq., F.G.S., F.E.S. _1 Alma Square, St.
  John’s Wood_, N.W.

  McCallum, Arthur E., Esq., 39th Madras Native Infantry. _Messrs.
  Smith, Elder, and Co., Pall Mall._

  McHenry, George, Esq. _162 New Bond Street_, W.

  Mackinder, Draper, Esq., M.D. _Gainsborough._

  Macleay, George, Esq. _Burlington Hotel_, W.

  McLeod, Walter, Esq. _Military Hospital, Chelsea_, S.W.

  Marsden, Robert C., Esq. _14 Hanover Terrace, Regent’s Park._

  Martindale, N., Esq. _17 Hanover Street, Liverpool._

  Mathieson, James, Esq. _1A Telegraph Street, Bank_; _and 2 Belitha
  Villas, Barnsbury Park_, N.

  Matthews, Henry, Esq. _30 Gower Street_, W.C.

  Mayall, J. E., Esq. _The Grove, Pinner._

  Mayson, John S., Esq. _Oak Hill, near Fallowfield, Manchester._

  Medd, William H., Esq. _The Mansion House, Stockport._

  Michie, Alexander, Esq. _21 Austin Friars._

  Milligan, Joseph, M.D., F.G.S., F.L.S. _15 Northumberland Street,
  Strand_, W.C.

  Milner, W. R., Esq. _Wakefield._

  Moore, J. Daniel, M.D., Esq., F.L.S. _County Lunatic Asylum,
  Lancaster._

  Moore, Dr. George. _Hartlepool._

  Morgan, F. J., Esq. _Stamford._

  ‡ Morris, David, Esq., F.S.A. _Market Place, Manchester._

  Morison, J. Cotter, Esq., F.R.S.L. _7 Porchester Square, Bayswater_,
  W.

  Murphy, Edward W., Esq. _41 Cumberland Street, Bryanstone Sq._, W.


  Nesbitt, George, Esq. _9 Piccadilly, Manchester._

  Newlett, Alfred, Esq., F.G.S. _Grange, Coppock, near Wigan._

  Newnham, The Rev. P. A., M.A. _9 Belvedere Terrace, Tunbridge Wells._

  Newton, Henry, Esq. _13 Hood Street, Newcastle-on-Tyne._

  † Nicholson, Sir Charles, Bart., D.C.L., LL.D., F.G.S. VICE-PRESIDENT.
  _19 Portland Place._

  North, Samuel W., Esq. _York._

  North, George, Esq. _4 Dane’s Inn_, W.C.


  O’Sullivan, The Honourable J. L. (of New York), late U.S. Minister
  to Portugal. (Care of) _Croskey and Co., 2 St. Michael’s House, St.
  Michael’s Lane_, E.C.

  Owen, Robert Briscoe, Esq., M.D., F.L.S. _Haulfre, Beaumaris._

  Owen, H. Bernard, Esq. _1 Swiss Villas, Chorlton Road, Manchester._


  Packman, J. D. V., Esq., F.L.S. _Braughing, Ware, Herts._

  Palmer, S., Esq. _London Road, Newbury._

  Parker, J. W., Esq. _Warren Corner House, near Farnham._

  Parry, Dashwood G., Esq. _Hope, near Wrexham._

  ¶ Peacock, Thomas Bevill, Esq., M.D. _20 Finsbury Circus_, E.C.

  Peiser, John, Esq. _Barnsfield House, Oxford Street, Manchester._

  ‡ Pengelly, William, Esq., F.R.S., F.G.S. _Lamorna, Torquay._

  Perry, Gerald, Esq., H.M. Consul. _French Guiana._

  Petherick, Horace W., Esq. _2 Rose Villas, Richmond Road, North End,
  Fulham_, S.W.

  Pick, Dr. Edward, F.E.S. _Old Quebec Street, Portman Square_, W.

  ¶ Pike, Luke Owen, Esq., M.A. _25 Carlton Villas, Maida Vale_, W.

  Pinkerton, W., Esq. _Hounslow._

  Prigg, Henry, Esq., jun. _Bury St. Edmunds._


  Ramsay, A., jun., Esq. _45 Norland Square, Notting Hill_, W.

  Ratcliff, Charles, Esq., F.L.S., F.S.A., F.G.S., F.E.S. _The
  Wyddringtons, Edgbaston, Birmingham._

  †¶ Reade, William Winwood, Esq., F.R.G.S., Corr. Mem. Geographical
  Society of Paris. _Conservative Club_, S.W.

  ¶ Reddie, James, Esq. _The Admiralty, Somerset House_, _and Bridge
  House, Hammersmith_, W.

  Renshaw, Charles J., Esq., M.D. _Ashton-on-Mersey, Manchester._

  Richards, Franklin, Esq. _12 Addison Crescent, Kensington._

  †¶ Roberts, George E., Esq. _Geological Society, Somerset House_,
  W.C.; _7 Caversham Road_, N.W.; _and_ _5 Bull Ring, Kidderminster_.

  Rock, James, Esq., jun. _Fairlight, near Hastings._

  Rogers, Alfred S., Esq., L.D.S. _St. John’s Street, Manchester._

  Rolph, George Frederick, Esq. _War Office, Pall Mall_; _and 149
  Cambridge Street, Pimlico_.

  †Roussillon, The Duke of. VICE-PRESIDENT. _17 Weymouth Street,
  Portland Place_, W.

  † Ruffières, Charles Robert des, Esq., F.G.S., F.E.S. _Wilmot Lodge,
  Rochester Row, Camden Town_, N.W.

  Russell, Captain A.H. _Hawke’s Bay, Napier, New Zealand._


  St. John, Spencer, Esq., F.R.G.S. H.M. Consul. _Hayti._

  Salting, William, Esq. _13 King’s Bench Walk, Temple_, E.C.

  Sanderson, Alfred W., Esq. _16 Archibald Street, Bow_, E.

  ঠSchvarcz, Julius, Esq., Ph.D., F.G.S., Corr. Mem. E.S., Member of
  the Hungarian Academy of Sciences. _Stuhlweissenberg, Hungary._

  Schwabe, E. S., Esq. _Rhodes Terrace, Manchester._

  Scott, The Rev. Robert S., M.A. _7 Beaufort Terrace, Cecil Street,
  Manchester._


  † Seemann, Berthold, Esq., M.D., F.L.S. _39 Canonbury Sq., Islington._

  Sharp, Samuel, Esq., F.S.A., F.G.S. _Dallington Hall, Northampton._

  ¶ Shortt, John, Esq., M.D., Zillah Surgeon. _Chingleput, Madras._

  Skues, Dr. Mackenzie, Staff Surgeon. _Kurrachee, Scinde._

  Silva-Ferro, Don Ramon de, F.G.S., F.R.G.S., Consul for the Republic
  of Chile. _21A Hanover Square._

  St. Clair, George, Esq., F.G.S., F.E.S. _Holford House, Regent’s
  Park_, N.W.

  Smith, Abell, Esq. _1 Great George Street, Westminster_, S.W.

  Smith, John, Esq., F.E.S. _1 Great George Street, Westminster_, S.W.

  Smith, Thomas, Esq., M.D. _Portland House Cheltenham._

  Smith, Protheroe, Esq., M.D. _25 Park Street_, W.

  Smith, Wm. Nugent, Esq. _Apsley Lodge, Wellington Road, Brighton._

  Snell, George Blagrove, Esq. _4 Pembroke Cottages, South Kensington_,
  W.

  Spencer, W. H., Esq. _High Wycombe, Bucks._

  ‡‡ Stanbridge, W. E., Esq. _Wombat, Victoria, Australia._

  Stenning, Charles, Esq. _4 Westbourne Park Place, Bayswater_, W.

  Stevenson, John, Esq. _4 Brougham Street, Edinburgh._

  Stirrup, Mark, Esq. _3 Withington Terrace, Moss-side, Manchester._

  Strachan, John, Esq. _1 Avondale Place, Glasgow._

  Sturman, Edward, Esq. _Camden House, Sydenham Park._


  Tagore, G. M., Esq., Professor of Bengali and Hindu Law in University
  College, London. _38 Kensington Park Gardens, Notting Hill, W._

  Taylor, W. E., Esq. _Milfield House, Enfield, near Accrington._

  Tenison, Ryan, Esq., M.D. _8 Keith Terrace, Shepherd’s Bush_, W.

  Thurnam, John, Esq., M.D., F.S.A., F.E.S. _Devizes._

  † Travers, William, Esq., M.R.C.S. _Charing Cross Hospital_, W.C.

  Trevelyan, Arthur, Esq., J.P. _Teinholan, Tranent_, N.B.

  Trübner, Nicolas, Esq. _60 Paternoster Row_, E.C.

  Turle, James G., M.D. _Burlington House, Boundary Road_, N.W.

  Tylor, Edward Burnet, Esq., F.R.G.S. _6 Boniface Terrace, Ventnor,
  Isle of Wight._

  † Vaux, William Sandys Wright, Esq., M.A., F.S.A., F. & Hon. Sec.
  R.S.L., Pres. Numismatic Society of London. _British Museum_, W.C.

  Vernon, George Venables, Esq., F.R.A.S., M.B.M.S., Mem. Met. Soc.
  Scot., Mem. de la Société Météorologique de la France. _Old Trafford,
  Manchester._


  ¶Wake, Charles Staniland, Esq. _16 Oxford Road Kilburn_, N.W.

  Walker, Robert, Esq. _42 Carnarvon Street, Glasgow._

  Walton, J. W., Esq. _21B Savile Row._

  Warwick, Richard Archer, Esq., M.D., M.R.C.P. _5 Hill Rise,
  Richmond_, S.W.

  Washbourn, Buchanan, Esq., M.D. _East Gate House, Gloucester._

  Watson, Samuel, Esq., F.E.S. _Bouverie Street_, E.C.

  Watts, J. King, Esq., F.R.G.S. _St. Ives, Hunts._

  Westropp, Hodder M., Esq. _Rookhurst, Monktown, Cork._

  Whitehead, J. B., Esq. _Oakley House, Rawtenstall, near Manchester._

  Whitehead, Peter O., Esq. _Holly House, Rawtenstall._

  Whitehead, Thomas K., Esq. _Holly Mount, Rawtenstall._

  Wickes, Henry William, Esq. _Pixfield, Bromley, Kent._

  Wilkins, Augustus S., Esq., B.A. _18 West Brixton_, S.

  Williams, Eric, Esq. _Newton House, Kensington_, W.

  † Witt, George, Esq., F.R.S. _22 Prince’s Terrace, Hyde Park_, S.W.

  Woodd, Charles H. L., Esq., F.G.S. _Roslyn, Hampstead_, N.W.

  Wood, F. Henry, Esq. _Hollin Hall, near Ripon, Yorkshire._

  Wood, the Rev. William S., D.D. _The School, Oakham, Rutland._

  Wright, William Cort, Esq. _Whalley Range, Manchester._


HONORARY FELLOWS.

  Agassiz, M. Louis, Professor of Zoology at Yale College, Cambridge,
  Mass., U.S., For. Mem. G.S. _Cambridge, Mass._

  Boudin, M., Médecin en Chef de L’Hôpital Militaire St. Martin. _210
  Rue de Rivoli, Paris._

  Broca, M. Paul, Sécrétaire général à la Société d’Anthropologie de
  Paris. _1 Rue des Saintspères, Paris._

  Baer, Von, M., Foreign Associate of the Anthropological Society of
  Paris. _St. Petersburg._

  Boucher de Perthes, M., Honorary Fellow of the Anthropological
  Society of Paris, Foreign Correspondent of the Geological Society of
  London. _Abbeville._

  Crawfurd, John, Esq., F.R.S., Vice-President of the Ethnological
  Society of London, F.R.G.S., etc. _15 William Street, Lowndes
  Square_, S.W.; _and Athenæum Club_.

  Dareste, M. Camille, Sécrétaire de la Société d’Anthropologie de
  Paris. _Rue de l’Abbaye, Paris._


  Darwin, Charles, Esq., M.A., F.R.S., F.L.S., F.G.S. _Down, Bromley,
  Kent._

  Eckhard, M., Professor of Physiology at the University of Giessen.
  _Giessen._

  Gratiolet, M. Pierre, D. M. P., Membre Titulaire de la Société
  d’Anthropologie de Paris. _15 Rue Guy Labrosse, Paris._

  Kingsley, The Rev. Charles, M.A., F.L.S., F.G.S., Rector of Eversley,
  Professor of Modern History in the University of Cambridge.
  _Eversley, near Winchfield, Hants._

  Lartêt, M. Edouard, For. Member G.S. _15 Rue Lacépéde, Paris._

  Lawrence, Wm., Esq., F.R.S., F.R.C.S. _18, Whitehall Place_, S.W.

  Lucae, Dr. J. C. S. _Frankfort._

  Lyell, Sir Charles, D.C.L., LL.D., F.R.S., F.G.S., Eq. Ord. Boruss.
  “pour le mérite,” Hon.M.R.S.Ed., F.S.L. _53 Harley Street_, W.

  Meigs, Dr. J. Aitken, Foreign Associate of the Anthropological
  Society of Paris. _Philadelphia._

  Milne-Edwards, Dr. Henry, Member of the Institute, For. Mem. R.S.,
  For. Mem. G.S., Professor of Natural History, Jardin des Plantes.
  _Paris._

  Nott, Dr. J. C., Foreign Associate of the Anthropological Society of
  Paris. _Mobile_ (_Alabama, C.S.A._)

  Owen, Richard, Esq., D.C.L., LL.D., F.R.C.S.E., F.R.S., F.G.S.,
  F.L.S., Hon. M.R.S.Ed., Hon. F.R. College of Surgeons of Ireland,
  Eq. Ord. Boruss. “pour le mérite,” Foreign Associate of the
  Anthropological Society of Paris, Chev. Leg. Hon. Institut (Imp.
  Acad. Sci.) Paris, Director of the Natural History Department,
  British Museum. _Sheen Lodge, Richmond Park_, S.W.

  Pruner-Bey, M., Membre Titulaire de la Société d’Anthropologie. _23,
  Place St. Victor, Paris._

  Quatrefages, M. Alphonse de, President of the Société d’Anthropologie
  de Paris. _Rue Geoffroy St. Hilaire, Paris._

  Renan, M., Membre Honoraire de la Société d’Anthropologie. _55 Rue
  Madame, Paris._

  Wagner, M. Rudolph, Professor of Zoology in the University of
  _Göttingen._

  Waitz, M. Theodor, Professor of Philosophy in the University of
  _Marburg._

  Wright, Thomas, Esq., M.A., F.S.A., Hon. F.R.S.L., Corr. Mem. of the
  Imperial Academy of Paris, Honorary Secretary of the Ethnological
  Society of London. _14 Sydney Street, Brompton_, S.W.


CORRESPONDING MEMBERS.

  Brücke, Dr. Vienna.
  Burgholzhausen, Count A. F. Marschall von, For. Corr. G.S. Vienna.
  Buschmann, Professor. Berlin.
  Carus, Professor C. G. Dresden.
  Castelnau, M. de. Paris.
  Desnoyers, M. Paris.
  Dorn, General Bernard. St. Petersburg.
  D’Omalius d’Halloy, Professor. Brussels.
  Duhousset, M. le Commandant. (French Army in the) Atlas.
  Gervais, M. Montpellier.
  Giglioli, Professor. Pavia.
  Gosse, M. A. L. (père). Geneva.
  Gosse, M. H. J. Geneva.
  Hochstetter, Professor. Vienna.
  Hyrtl, Professor. Vienna.
  Kaup, Professor. Darmstadt.
  Leuckart, M. Giessen.
  Martin-Magron, M. 26 Rue Madame, Paris.
  Morlot, M., For. Corr. G.S. Berne.
  Pictet, M., For. Corr. G.S. Geneva.
  Pouchet, George. Rouen.
  Raimondy, Professor. Lima.
  Reichert, M.
  Rickard, Major Francis Ignacio, F.G.S., F.C.S. Argentine Republic,
    21A Hanover Square.
  Rütimeyer, Professor. Basle.
  Scherzer, Dr. Carl. Vienna.
  Schlagintweit, Hermann de. Paris.
  Steinhauer, Herr Carl. Copenhagen.
  Steenstrup, Professor. Copenhagen.
  Thomsen, Professor. Copenhagen.
  Uhde, C. W. F. Berlin.
  Vibraye, Marquis de. Abbeville.
  Vogt, Carl. Geneva.
  Welcker, Dr. H., Professor. Halle.
  Wilson, Professor Daniel. Toronto.
  Worsaae, Professor. Copenhagen.

LOCAL SECRETARIES (GREAT BRITAIN).

  Bosworth, The Rev. Joseph, D.D., F.R.S., F.S.A., etc., etc. Oxford.

  Brodie, The Rev. P. B., M.A., F.L.S., F.G.S. The Vicarage, Rowington,
  near Warwick.

  Buckman, Professor, F.L.S., F.G.S. Bradford Abbas, near Sherborne,
  Dorset.

  Chignell, H. A., Esq., F.A.S.L. 47 York Road, Brighton.

  Fairbank, Frederick Royston, Esq., M.D., F.A.S.L. St. Mary’s Terrace,
  Hulme, Manchester.

  Farquharson, Dr. Stockton-on-Tees.

  Gibson, Craig, Esq., M.D. Bebbington, Cheshire.

  Gore, R. T., Esq., F.A.S.L., F.R.C.S. 6 Queen Square, Bath.

  Groves, Charles, Esq. Wareham.

  Helsby, W. G., Esq. Crosby Green, New Derby, Liverpool.

  Jackson, J. W., Esq., F.A.S.L. 39 St. George’s Road, Glasgow.

  Jones, John, Esq. Gloucester.

  King, Kelburne, Esq., M.D., F.A.S.L. 27 George Street, Hull.

  MacClean, Hector, Esq. Ballygrant, Islay, Scotland.

  Morris, David, Esq., F.S.A., F.A.S.L. Market Place, Manchester.

  Pengelly, William, Esq., F.R.S., F.G.S., F.A.S.L. Lamorna, Torquay.

  Pullen, Hyde, Esq. Isle of Wight.

  Rivers, Rev. Henry F., M.A. Chatham.

  Rolph, Charles Alfred, Esq. St. Mark’s Terrace, Tettenhall Road, near
  Wolverhampton.

  Tate, George, Esq., F.G.S., Secretary of the Berwickshire
  Naturalists’ Field Club, Corresponding Member of the Society of
  Antiquaries, Scotland. Alnwick.

  Tate, Thomas, Esq., F.R.A.S., President of the Hastings and St.
  Leonard’s Philosophical Society. Hastings.

  Travers, Frederick, Esq. Poole.


LOCAL SECRETARIES (ABROAD).

  Allen, S. Stafford, Esq. (2 Paradise Row, Stoke Newington, N.) Egypt.
  Bogge, Edward B., R.N. Vancouver’s Island.
  Cross, A. G., Esq., F.R.C.S. China.
  Delepierre, M. Octave. Brussels.

  Du Chaillu, Paul Belloni, Esq., F.A.S.L., F.R.G.S. West Coast of Africa.
  Fenwick, G. E., Esq., M.D. Montreal, Upper Canada.
  Fritsch, Dr. Anton, Director of the National Museum of Bohemia, Prague.
  Giraldés, Professor M., Prof. de Méd. à l’Hopital des Enfans Trouvés,
    Paris.
  Houghton, Dr. Edward Price, Surgeon. Borneo.
  Hincks, Professor. Toronto.
  Lockart, William, Esq., M.R.C.S. China.
  Miklosich, M. Franciscus. Vienna.
  Müller, F., Esq., M.D., F.R.S. Victoria.
  Phœbus, Dr. Giessen.
  Ross, J. G. C., Esq. Cocoa Islands, Java.
  Russell, Captain A. H., F.A.S.L. New Zealand.
  Schaaffhausen, Dr. Bonn.
  ¶ Schvarcz, Dr. Julius, F.G.S., F.A.S.L. Member of the Hungarian
    Academy of Sciences. Stuhlweissenberg, Hungary.
  Snow, Captain W. Parker. New York.
  Stanbridge, W. E., Esq., F.A.S.L., F.E.S. Wombat, Victoria Australia.
  Wienecke, Dr. Batavia.
  Wilson, J. Spotswood, F.R.G.S. Ecuador.

First Annual Report OF THE ANTHROPOLOGICAL SOCIETY OF LONDON.

1863.


The TREASURER submitted the following Balance Sheet, which had been
passed by the Auditors.


_Balance Sheet of the Anthropological Society for the Year 1863._

    DR.                      £  _s._ _d._|  CR.                       £  _s._ _d._
                                         |
  Received 183 Annual                    |Paid for printing and
    Subscriptions                        |  lithography              228   5   0
    at £2:2:0               384   6   0  |
                                         |Stationery and binding      23   4   6
  A Fellow, on account                   |
    of subscription           1   0   0  |Meetings                    32  10   6
                                         |
  One Fellow overpaid         0   0   6  |Attendance                  10  10   0
                                         |
  Subscriptions in arrear    63   0   0  |Advertisements              50  11   3
                                         |
  Two life compositions                  |Postages, messengers,
    at £21                   42   0   0  |  candles, cleaning
                                         |  offices, tin box, and
  Subscriptions to Journals   2   9   0  |  sundry expenses           56   0   7
                                         |
  Donations:--                           |Reporting                    5  15   6
    Mr. Christy        £5  0             |
    Mr. J. F.                            |Mr. Blake’s expenses to
      Collingwood      10 10             |  Newcastle                 14   0   0
    Mr. S. E.                            |
      Collingwood       5  5             |Still owing for printing   155   1   3
                      ------ 20  15  0   |
                                         |Balance in favour of the
  For copies of the                      |  Society                   64  11   5
    President’s Inaugural                |
    Address                   1  19  6   |
                                         |
  Average value of printed               |
    stock in hand as                     |
    follows:                             |
    Longman (Waitz)  abt. 100            |
    Trübner (Journal) “    20            |
      “     (Address) “     5            |
                        ---- 125   0  0  |
                            ------------ |                          ------------
                            £640  10  0  |                          £640  10   0
                            ------------ |                          ------------


The Council of the Anthropological Society of London have much pleasure
in reporting to the Fellows of the Society that they consider the state
of the Society to be satisfactory and most encouraging. The past year
has been one of great anxiety to the Council, inasmuch as the scheme
proposed by the original circular of the Society was so vast, that the
Council at first nearly despaired of being able to carry it out in all
its particulars. The Council now beg to submit a few remarks on each
of the objects for which the Society was founded, and also to add some
suggestions for the consideration of the Society.

_Meetings._ During the past year, _i.e._ since February 24, thirteen
ordinary meetings of the Society have been held, at which twenty-four
papers have been read, consisting of the following:--

  DR. JAMES HUNT, President, On the Study of Anthropology.

  CAPTAIN R. F. BURTON, Vice-President, A Day among the Fans.

  PROFESSOR RAIMONDI, On the Indian Tribes of Loreto, in North Peru.

  R. T. GORE, Esq., On a Case of Microcephaly.

  ALFRED TYLOR, Esq., On the Discovery of Supposed Human Remains in the
  Tool-bearing Drift of Moulin-Quignon.

  DR. JULIUS SCHVARCZ, On the Permanence of Type.

  C. S. WAKE, Esq., On the Relations of Man to the Lower Animals.

  W. BOLLAERT, Esq., Past and Present Populations of the New World.

  PROFESSOR JOHN MARSHALL, On a Case of Microcephaly.

  PROFESSOR GEORGE BUSK, On the Human Remains from so-called Brick
  Earth, at Luton, near Chatham, contributed by the Rev. H. F. Rivers.

  T. BENDYSHE, Esq., On Human Remains found at Barrington, in
  Cambridgeshire.

  R. S. CHARNOCK, Esq., On the Science of Language.

  W. WINWOOD READE, Esq., On the Bush Tribes of Equatorial Africa.

  C. CARTER BLAKE, Esq., F.G.S., On Recent Evidence of the Extreme
  Antiquity of the Human Race.

  C. CARTER BLAKE, Esq., F.G.S., Report on the Anthropological Papers
  read before the British Association at Newcastle.

  PROFESSOR JOHN MARSHALL, F.R.S., On the Superficial Convolutions of a
  Microcephalic Brain.

  GEORGE E. ROBERTS, Esq., and PROFESSOR BUSK, F.R.S., Note on the
  Opening of a Kist at Burghead.

  CAPTAIN EUSTACE JACOB, Indian Tribes of Vancouver’s Island.

  DR. JAMES HUNT, F.S.A., Pres. A.S.L., The Negro’s Place in Nature.

  CLEMENTS R. MARKHAM, Esq., F.R.G.S., On Crystal Quartz Cutting
  Instruments of the Ancient Inhabitants of Chanduy, near Guayaquil.

  GEORGE E. ROBERTS, Esq., F.A.S.L., On the Discovery of Mammalian
  Bone, cut and sawn by Flint Implements at Audley End, Essex.

  A. BRYSON, Esq., F.G.S., On Human Remains from the Bin of Cullen
  (communicated by George E. Roberts, Esq., F.A.S.L.)


  DR. F. ROYSTON FAIRBANK, On Flint Arrowheads from Canada.

  COUNT OSCAR REICHENBACH, Vitality of the Coloured People in the
  United States.

The Council hope that during the next year some most important and
valuable memoirs will be laid before the Society.

The discussions have been satisfactory, and many Fellows and visitors
had taken part in them.

_Transactions._ The Council, at the early part of the year, made
arrangements with Messrs. Trübner and Co. to publish the Journal of
the Society in connection with the _Anthropological Review_. This has
hitherto been carried out, and the Council think that the connection
between the _Review_ and _Journal_ will soon be better understood.
At first the _Journal_ was printed as part of the _Review_, but
the Council have now made arrangements that the _Journal_ shall be
paged differently, and it will then be seen for which part of this
publication the Society is alone responsible. The _Journal_ for the
ensuing year will occupy a far larger space than it has hitherto
done. An offer was made to the Council of the copyright of the
_Anthropological Review_, which the Council felt it their duty to
decline. The _Memoirs_ have not yet been published, but a volume is
now in the press. A general wish of the Fellows induced the Council to
order the separate publication of the President’s paper “On the Negro’s
Place in Nature,” which will, however, again appear in the forthcoming
volume of _Memoirs_.

_Museum._ Many valuable donations have been made to the Museum, and
many other presents have been offered when a suitable place has been
found for the deposit. The following gentlemen have made donations to
the Museum:--Dr. James Hunt, Rev. H. F. Rivers, W. W. Reade, Esq.,
George Witt, Esq., Erasmus Wilson, Esq., C. Carter Blake, Esq., Dr. R.
Fairbank, Captain R. F. Burton, R. T. Gore, Esq., T. Bendyshe, Esq.,
and A. A. Fraser, Esq.

_Library._ The Library now consists of more than two hundred volumes.
The Council have only recently made an effort to establish a Library;
but they trust ere long to have such an Anthropological Library for
the use of the Fellows as has never before existed in this metropolis.
The Council also beg to suggest to the Fellows that they may all have
works which, comparatively valueless in themselves, would yet be
of the highest value in an Anthropological Library. Donations have
already been received from the following gentlemen:--Dr. James Hunt,
(one hundred and eighteen volumes) T. Bendyshe, Esq., J. Jones, Esq.,
Professor Busk, Dr. W. Bell, M. Boucher de Perthes, the Anthropological
Society of Paris, M. Paul Broca, M. Pruner-Bey, George Tate, Esq.,
Professor R. Owen, M. Camille Dareste, Professor Nicolucci, Sir Charles
Lyell, Dr. Hughlings Jackson, C. Carter Blake, Esq., M. D’Omnalius
D’Halloy, Professor Dana, the Smithsonian Institution of New York, A.
Stair, Esq., David Carrington, Esq., Professor Eckhard, Hekekyan Bey,
Royal Institution of Cornwall, Dr. Beke, Sir W. Jardine, Dr. Cuthbert
Collingwood, the Royal Geographical Society, Imperial Academy of
Science of Vienna, the Society of Antiquaries, G. McHenry, Esq., J.
Frederick Collingwood, Esq., Jacob Boys, Esq., R. S. Charnock, Esq., R.
T. Gore, Esq., H. C. Atkinson, Esq., M. de Quatrefages, Dr. F. C. Webb,
the upper Hesse Society für Natur- und Heilkunde, Rev. W. Houghton,
W. Spencer Cockings, Esq., the Royal Society of London, George Witt,
Esq., Professor R. Wagner, Professor Tennant, G. E. Roberts, Esq., A.
Higgins, Esq., C. von Martius, Dr. Beddoe, and G. Pouchet.

_Translations._ The Council are glad to report that they have printed
the first volume of a translation of Waitz’s _Anthropologie der
Naturvölker_, and they feel that their best thanks are due to Mr. J.
Frederick Collingwood, for the care and attention with which he edited
this work. Mr. Collingwood has fully explained the reasons which
induced the Council to select this work, and they feel it right to
acquaint the Fellows of their determination during the ensuing year to
issue works which shall not advocate the same opinions as those put
forward by Professor Waitz. The Council are fully impressed with the
necessity of their exercising a strict impartiality in selecting works
for translation. The Council have entrusted the chief management of the
publications of the Society to a Publishing Committee, and they feel
the thanks of the Society are due to this Committee for the efficient
manner in which they have discharged their duties.

It is proposed that the following works should be next undertaken by
the Society:--

  Broca. Sur l’Hybridité Animale en général, et sur l’Hybridité Humaine
  en particulier. 8vo, Paris, 1860. Edited by C. Carter Blake, Esq.,
  F.G.S., Hon. Sec. A.S.L. (_In the Press._)

  Pouchet. Pluralité des Races Humaines. 8vo, Paris, 1858. Edited by T.
  Bendyshe, Esq., M.A., F.A.S.L. (_In the Press._)

  Carl Vogt. Vorlesungen über den Menschen, seine Stellung in der
  Schöpfung und in der Geschichte der Erde. 8vo, Giessen, 1863. Edited
  by Dr. James Hunt, F.S.A., Pres. A.S.L. (_In the Press._)

  Gratiolet. Mémoire sur les Plis Cérébraux de l’Homme et des Primates.
  4to, Paris, 1855. Edited by Dr. Tuke.


  A. de Quatrefages. Unité de l’Espèce Humaine. 8vo, Paris, 1861.
  Edited by George F. Rolph, Esq., F.A.S.L.

  Dr. Theodor Waitz, Professor of Philosophy in the University of
  Marburg. Anthropologie der Naturvölker. 1861. Second part. Edited by
  J. Frederick Collingwood, Esq., F.G.S., F.R.S.L., Hon. Sec. A.S.L.

  Gosse. Mémoire sur les Déformations Artificielles du Crâne. 8vo,
  Paris, 1855. Edited by Dr. Thurnam, F.S.A., F.A.S.L.

  Retzius, Professor. The collected works of.

_Committees._ Two Committees have been appointed. The first to report
on the terminology of Anthropological Science; and the second to report
on the present state of the Anthropological Museums in Great Britain.
The result of the reports will be issued to the Fellows as soon as they
are known.

_Societies._ Arrangements have been made to exchange Transactions with
the following Societies in Great Britain:--

  The Royal Society.
  Society of Antiquaries of London.
  Royal Society of Literature.
  The Royal Geographical Society.
  Berwickshire Naturalists’ Field Club.
  Philosophical and Literary Society of Leeds.
  The Royal Institute of Cornwall.
  The Glasgow Geological Society.
  Cotteswold Naturalists’ Field Club.
  Literary and Philosophical Society of Liverpool.

Arrangements have been made for an exchange of publications with the
following Academies and Societies, several of which have forwarded to
the Society complete sets of their Proceedings and Memoirs:--

  The Anthropological Society of Paris.
  The Royal Academy of Sciences at Amsterdam.
  The Imperial German Academy at Dresden.
  The Royal Society of Victoria, Melbourne.
  The Smithsonian Institute, Washington.
  The Imperial Academy at St. Petersburg.
  The Canadian Institute, Toronto.
  The Imperial Academy of Sciences, Vienna.
  The Royal Bengal Asiatic Society, Calcutta.
  The Upper Hesse Society for Natural and Medical Science, Giessen.
  The Physio-economical Society of Königsburg.

In the foreign department, eighteen gentlemen have been elected
Honorary Fellows, thirty-five Corresponding Members, and twenty Local
Secretaries. Communications have been received from nearly all of these
gentlemen, expressing great interest in the work of the Society and
offering to advance its objects in every way in their power.

_Honorary Fellows._ The Council have felt it their duty to limit the
present number of Honorary Fellows to twenty-five. It is proposed,
however, eventually to increase this number to forty.

_Corresponding Members._ Thirty-five Corresponding Members have been
elected, and the Council recommend that no more than forty be elected.

_Local Secretaries._ Twenty-two Local Secretaries have been appointed
in Great Britain, of these seven are Fellows of the Society. The
Council are still anxious to increase this number, and to have their
official representative in every county, and also in every large town
throughout the kingdom. They will be glad to hear from gentlemen who
are really anxious to promote the objects of the Society. Twenty Local
Secretaries have been appointed abroad, but the Council hope during
the next year that their number will be largely increased. The Council
invite the assistance of the Fellows in nominating gentlemen to fill
this important office in different parts of the world. The Council have
not yet been able “to indicate the class of facts required,” but they
hope during the ensuing session to be able to do so.

_Donations._ Besides the valuable donations which the Society have
received for the Library and Museum, they have also the pleasure of
announcing the following:--Henry Christy, Esq., £5.; J. F. Collingwood,
Esq., £10; S. E. Collingwood, Esq., £5.; Henry Hotze, Esq. £5 (for the
library).

_Special Donations._ The following sums have been received as a special
fund for preparing or stuffing a specimen of male Gorilla, presented to
the Society by Mr. Winwood Reade:--J. Frederick Collingwood, Esq., £5;
S. E. B. Bouverie Pusey, Esq., £5; S. E. Collingwood, Esq., £5; James
Hunt, Esq., £1; Charles Stenning, Esq., £1; C. R. des Ruffières, £1; W.
Chamberlain, Esq., 5s.

The Council having made a few remarks on each of the chief objects of
the Society, would now beg to invite the attention of the Fellows to
the important question of Finance, which will necessarily regulate its
future operations. The experience of the past year has convinced the
Council, after mature and earnest consideration, that the objects of
the Society cannot be fully carried out until there are Five hundred
Fellows. The Council would, therefore, suggest the desirability of not
increasing the subscription or of making an entrance fee, until this
number has been obtained. It will be readily seen that the objects of
this Society include something more than those generally included in a
scientific society, and that the expense of printing is very large. The
Council are glad, however, to state that the present number of Fellows,
two hundred and thirty-six, will enable them to accomplish all they
have done during the past year; but they feel that the ultimate success
of a Society of this sort will require a larger annual expenditure. The
Council feel especially anxious to establish as soon as possible a good
reference library. They also look forward with earnest hope of being
able to found a reliable Anthropological Museum, and thus remove the
disgrace under which this country is now suffering, that with all our
colonial possessions no independent Anthropological Museum has yet been
established in this Metropolis.

The Council are fully sensible of the important services which the
officers of the Society have rendered during the past year, and they
feel that it is their duty to again call on all the officers for
renewed exertion during the ensuing year. The Council trust that the
ample success which their efforts have met during the past year, will
be an encouragement to the official representatives of the Council
to again use their exertions to put the affairs of the Society in a
permanently satisfactory state.

  Signed on behalf of the Council,
  JAMES HUNT, _Chairman_.

Anthropological Society of London.

4, ST. MARTIN’S PLACE, TRAFALGAR SQUARE.


This Society is formed with the object of promoting the study of
Anthropology in a strictly scientific manner. It proposes to study
Man in all his leading aspects, physical, mental, and historical; to
investigate the laws of his origin and progress; to ascertain his place
in nature and his relations to the inferior forms of life; and to
attain these objects by patient investigation, careful induction, and
the encouragement of all researches tending to establish a _de facto_
science of man. No Society existing in this country has proposed to
itself these aims, and the establishment of this Society, therefore, is
an effort to meet an obvious want of the times.


This it is proposed to do:

  First. By holding Meetings for the reading of papers and the
  discussion of various anthropological questions.

  Second. By the publication of reports of papers and abstracts of
  discussions in the form of a Quarterly Journal; and also by the
  publication of the principal memoirs read before the Society, in the
  form of Transactions.

  Third. By the appointment of Officers, or Local Secretaries, in
  different parts of the world, to collect systematic information.
  It will be the object of the Society to indicate the class of
  facts required, and thus tend to give a systematic development to
  Anthropology.

  Fourth. By the establishment of a carefully collected and reliable
  Museum, and a good reference Library.

  Fifth. By the publication of a series of works on Anthropology which
  will tend to promote the objects of the Society. These works will
  generally be translations; but original works will also be admissible.

The translation of the following work is now ready.

  Dr. Theodor Waitz, Professor of Philosophy in the University of
  Marburg. Anthropologie der Naturvölker. 1861. First Part. Edited by
  J. Frederick Collingwood, Esq., F.R.S.L., F.G.S., Hon. Sec. A.S.L.,
  with corrections and additions by the Author.

Translations of the following works will be delivered to all the
Fellows for the year 1864:

  1. Broca. Sur l’Hybridité Animale en général, et sur l’Hybridité
  Humaine en particulier. 8vo, Paris, 1860. Edited by C. Carter Blake,
  Esq., F.G.S., Hon. Sec. A.S.L. (_Now ready._)

  2. Pouchet. Pluralité des Races Humaines. 8vo, Paris, 1858. Edited by
  T. Bendyshe, Esq., M.A., F.A.S.L. (_In the Press._)

  3. Carl Vogt. Vorlesungen über den Menschen, seine Stellung in der
  Schöpfung und in der Geschichte der Erde. 8vo, Giessen, 1868. Edited
  by Dr. James Hunt, F.S.A., Pres. A.S.L. (_In the Press._)

Translations of the following works are in progress:--

  Gratiolet. Mémoire sur les Plis Cérébraux de l’Homme et des Primates.
  4to, Paris, 1855. Edited by Dr. Daniel H. Tuke.

  A. de Quatrefages. Unité de l’Espèce Humaine. 8vo, Paris, 1861.
  Edited by George F. Rolph, Esq., F.A.S.L.

  Dr. Theodor Waitz, Professor of Philosophy in the University of
  Marburg. Anthropologie der Naturvölker. 1861. Second part. Edited by
  J. Frederick Collingwood, Esq., F.G.S., F.R.S.L., Hon. Sec. A.S.L.

  Gosse. Mémoire sur les Déformations Artificielles du Crâne. 8vo,
  Paris, 1855. Edited by Dr. Thurnam, F.S.A., F.A.S.L.

  Retzius, Professor. The collected works of.

  Sixth. By the appointment, from time to time, of various Committees
  authorised to report to the Society on particular topics which may
  be referred to them; the results of such investigations being in all
  cases communicated to the Society.


OFFICERS AND COUNCIL FOR 1864.

  _President_--James Hunt, Esq., Ph.D., F.S.A., F.R.S.L., Foreign
  Associate of the Anthropological Society of Paris, etc.

  _Vice-Presidents_--Captain Richard F. Burton, H.M. Consul at Fernando
  Po, etc. Sir Charles Nicholson, Bart., D.C.L., LL.D., F.G.S., etc.
  The Duke of Roussillon.

  _Honorary Secretaries_--C. Carter Blake, Esq., F.G.S., Foreign
  Associate of the Anthropological Society of Paris, etc. J. Frederick
  Collingwood, Esq., F.G.S., F.R.S.L., Foreign Associate of the
  Anthropological Society of Paris.

  _Honorary Foreign Secretary_--Alfred Higgins, Esq., Foreign Associate
  of the Anthropological Society of Paris.

  _Treasurer_--Richard Stephan Charnock, Esq., F.S.A., F.R.G.S.,
  Foreign Associate of the Anthropological Society of Paris.


_Council._

  Hugh J. C. Beavan, Esq., F.R.G.S.
  T. Bendyshe, Esq., M.A.
  W. Bollaert, Esq., F.R.G.S., Corr. Mem. Univ. Chile, and Ethno. Socs.
    London and New York.
  S. Edwin Collingwood, Esq., F.Z.S.
  George D. Gibb, Esq., M.A., M.D., F.G.S.
  J. Norman Lockyer, Esq., F.R.A.S.
  S. E. Bouverie-Pusey, Esq., F.E.S.
  W. Winwood Reade, Esq., F.R.G.S., Corr. Mem. Geographical Society
    of Paris.
  George E. Roberts, Esq.
  C. Robert des Ruffières, Esq., F.G.S., F.E.S.
  Dr. Berthold Seemann, F.L.S.
  William Travers, Esq., M.R.C.S.
  W. S. W. Vaux, Esq., M.A., F.S.A., F. and Hon. Sec. R.S.L., President
    of the Numismatic Society of London.
  George Witt, Esq., F.R.S.

The Terms of Membership for the first five hundred Fellows (who
will be called Foundation Fellows) are Two Guineas per annum, which
will entitle every Fellow to admission to the Meetings, one copy of
the Quarterly Journal, the Memoirs of the Society, and a Volume (or
Volumes) of the Translations printed by the Society. Life Members,
Twenty Guineas.

Further particulars will be forwarded on application to the Honorary
Secretaries.

The following Papers, amongst others, will be laid before the Society
in the present session:--

  R. LEE, Esq., F.A.S.L., On the Extinction of Races. (Read Jan. 19.)

  T. BENDYSHE, Esq., M.A., F.A.S.L., On the Extinction of Races.
  (Ditto.)

  PROFESSOR C. G. CARUS, Construction of the Upper Jaw in the Skull of
  a Greenlander. (With notes by C. CARTER BLAKE.) (Read Feb. 2.)

  JAMES REDDIE, Esq., F.A.S.L., On Anthropological Desiderata. (Ditto.)

  REV. J. M. JOASS, On Pictish Remains. (Read Feb. 16.)

  DR. T. B. PEACOCK, F.A.S.L., Weight of the Brain in Negroes. (Ditto.)

  C. CARTER BLAKE, Esq., F.G.S., F.A.S.L., On the Neanderthal Skull.
  (Ditto.)

  A. R. WALLACE, Esq., F.L.S., On the Theory of Natural Selection with
  reference to the Origin of Races. (Read March 1st.)

  HERMANN DE SCHLAGINTWEIT, Ethnographical Casts. (Read March 15.)

  DR. JOHN SHORTT, F.A.S.L., of Chingleput, On the Domber. (Read March
  15.)

  L. OWEN PIKE, Esq., M.A., F.A.S.L., On the Sciences of Mind and
  Language in Relation to Man. (Read March 15.)

  H. F. J. GUPPY, Esq., F.A.S.L., On the Capabilities of the Negro Race
  for Civilisation. (Read March 15.)

  CAPTAIN BURTON, V.P.A.S.L., and C. CARTER BLAKE, Esq., F.G.S., On
  Skulls from Annabom, in the West African Seas.

  The REV. F. W. FARRAR, M.A., On Hybridity.

  DR. JOHN THURNAM, F.S.A., On the Crania of Early Britons.

  A. HIGGINS, Esq., Hon. For. Sec. A.S.L., On the Orthographic
  Delineation of the Skull.

  W. BOLLAERT, Esq., F.R.G.S., F.A.S.L., Palæography of the New World.

  DR. F. ROYSTON FAIRBANK, F.A.S.L., On the Discovery of Syphilis in a
  Monkey.

  WILLIAM BOLLAERT, Esq., F.R.G.S., F.A.S.L., On the Alleged
  Introduction of Syphilis from the New World.

  G. E. ROBERTS, Esq., F.A.S.L., and C. CARTER BLAKE, Esq., F.G.S., On
  Human Remains from Peterborough.

  The REV. F. W. FARRAR, M.A., On the Alleged Universality of the
  Belief in a God.

  DR. GEORGE D. GIBB, M.A., F.G.S., On some Abnormal Human Skulls.

  GEORGE E. ROBERTS, Esq., F.A.S.L., On the Contents of a Bone-cave at
  Kirkhead, near Ulverstone.

  C. CARTER BLAKE, Esq., F.G.S., On some Human Remains from a Bone-cave
  in Brazil.

  E. BURNET TYLOR, Esq., F.R.G.S., F.A.S.L., On some British
  Kjökkenmödings.

  W. BOLLAERT, Esq., F.R.G.S., F.A.S.L., Introduction to the
  Anthropology of America.

  DR. JAMES HUNT, F.S.A., F.A.S.L., On the Principles of
  Anthropological Classification.

  CAPTAIN BURTON, V.P.A.S.L., A Visit to Dahomey.

  C. CARTER BLAKE, Esq., F.G.S., F.A.S.L., On the Cranioscopy of South
  American Nations.

  C. CARTER BLAKE, Esq., F.G.S., On the Form of the Lower Jaw in the
  Races of Mankind.

  DR. MURIE, On the Stature of the Tribes inhabiting the Nile Valley.

  R. S. CHARNOCK, Esq., F.S.A., F.A.S.L., On the People of Andorra.

  J. F. COLLINGWOOD, Esq., F.R.S.L., On Race-Antagonism.


PUBLICATIONS OF THE ANTHROPOLOGICAL SOCIETY.


Now Ready, in 1 vol., 8vo., pp. 400, price 16s., cloth,

Waitz’s Introduction to Anthropology.

Edited, from the FIRST VOLUME of _Anthropologie der Naturvölker_, by J.
FREDERICK COLLINGWOOD, F.R.S.L., F.G.S., F.A.S.L., Foreign Associate
of the Anthropological Society of Paris, Honorary Secretary of the
Anthropological Society of London.


_Extract of a Letter from the Author to the Editor._

“I have received your translation of the first volume of my
‘_Anthropologie der Naturvölker_,’ and hasten to return you my
heartfelt thanks for the great care and assiduity which you have
bestowed on the task. I am fully cognisant of the great difficulties
you have to contend with, especially as my style, as alluded to in
your preface, possesses many peculiarities, so that even German men
of science consider the reading of my books rather hard work. All
these difficulties you have surmounted with the greatest skill, so as
to render my work, as it appears to me, into very pleasing, readable
English.”


OPINIONS OF THE PRESS.

“A more felicitous selection could not, we conceive, by any possibility
have been made than the very one which has resulted in the publication
of the book lying before us. For within the compass of the first volume
of Dr. Waitz’s _Anthropologie der Naturvölker_ is compacted together
the most comprehensive and exhaustive survey of the new science yet
contributed, we believe, in any tongue to European literature. To the
English public generally, however, it is a book almost unknown, saving
and excepting alone by reputation. Although merely a translation from
the German, therefore, the work is virtually, if not an original work,
a perfectly new work to the mass of readers in this country. So far
as this same rapidly executed work of translation can be compared and
collated with the original, it appears to be a version singularly
faithful and accurate.... The book, as it now appears, is a work of
especial value, and also one of very peculiar interest. It thoroughly
fulfils its design of affording the reader of it, within a single
volume, the very best epitome anywhere to be found of what is the
actual ‘present state’ of anthropological science in Christendom. Dr.
Waitz takes a far wider range within his ken than Prichard and Nott and
Gliddon combined.”--_The Sun_, Dec. 14, 1863.

“The volume in every page exhibits great research; it abounds with
interesting speculation, all tending the right way, and the information
it presents is happily conveyed in a popular manner.”--_Morning
Advertiser_, Nov. 16, 1863.

“So comprehensive is the view taken by the author of all that pertains
to man, that a mere enumeration even of the leading topics of the work
is beyond our space, and we must content ourselves with recommending
its perusal to such of our readers as are interested in the subject,
with the assurance that it will well repay the trouble.”--_Weekly
Dispatch_, Nov. 29, 1863.

“This handsomely printed volume discusses at great length and with much
ability the question as to the races of man.... At the hands of Dr.
Waitz it has met with calm consideration, and in its English dress will
prove both interesting and instructive. It displays great research, and
contains a large extent of highly interesting matter.”--_Liverpool
Albion_, Nov. 9, 1863.

“From such a bill of fare, our readers will be able to judge that the
work is one of value and interest.... It is of the nature of a review,
arriving at a comprehensive and proportional estimate, rather than at
minute accuracy of detail, such as may be sought elsewhere in each
department.”--_Medical Times_, Dec. 26, 1863.

“Crammed as full of hard facts as wellnigh 400 pages of large 8vo. can
contain: all these facts attested by footnote authorities marshalled
knee-deep at the bottom of every page; with a list of contents so
copious as to eclipse everything of the kind in any recent scientific
volume, and yet followed by an index more minute and ample; this
work is a magazine of the infant science of Man; a model of German
industry, erudition, and philosophical devotion; and a credit to the
Society which has sent forth, in a shape so serviceable, what might
otherwise have proved a tantalising mass of learned collectanea.... We
have perused this translated volume with alternate wonder and amazement
at its strange assemblage of facts, its curious classifications, its
marvellous revelations of human peculiarities; and we do not hesitate
to say that more food for speculation, a more cosmopolitan and
comprehensive glance over all the developments of savage and civilised
man has been collected here, than could have been dreamed of by those
who may not have given it a perusal.”--_Dorset County Chronicle_, Nov.
18, 1863.

“Dr. Waitz would appear to have collected together all the authorities
and contradictory statements of former writers.... The present work
will be hailed with pleasure by all who are interested in the study
of anthropology, and will, it is hoped, induce a more universal
acquaintance with the science.”--_Observer_, Nov. 8, 1863.

“The Anthropological Society of London have done well in publishing a
translation of Dr. Waitz’s _Anthropologie der Naturvölker_, of which
this volume is the first instalment. Dr. Waitz’s work is by far the
most complete that exists on the subject of which it treats. It is the
fullest collection of facts, interwoven with, and made to bear upon,
all the theories (and their name is legion) which have been advanced
in explanation of the endless diversities and resemblances that exist
among mankind. Dr. Waitz himself is wedded to no particular theory, and
in this volume, at least, advances none, but he points out with great
clearness the effects that may be fairly attributed to the various
influences, external and internal, physical and psychical, which affect
the human form and national character.”--_The Press_, Dec. 5, 1863.

“This volume will help to put the science of anthropology in a proper
light before the scientific men of this country. Whatever faults we may
have to find with this work, we feel sure that its publication marks an
epoch in the study of anthropology in this country. The anthropologist
can now say to the inquirer, Read and study Waitz, and you will learn
all that science has yet to reveal.”--_Anthropological Review_, No. 3.

“The Anthropological Society deserve great praise for the energy and
activity they display in prosecuting their object.... We find in this
volume a fair statement and discussion of the questions bearing on
the unity of man as a species, and his natural condition. He gives a
very clear account of the different views held on these questions, and
a full collection of the facts, or supposed facts, by which they are
supported. The chief fault of the book is, indeed, this very fulness
and fairness in collecting all that can be said on both sides of a
question.... We must regard the work as a valuable addition to the
books on this subject already in our language, and as likely, by the
thought and inquiry it must suggest, to promote the great end of the
Society--a truer and higher knowledge of man, his origin, nature, and
destiny.”--_The Scotsman_, Dec. 7, 1863.

“We need hardly say, that it is quite out of our power to give any
detailed account of this volume. It is itself a volume of details.
Its nature, character, and value, may be gleaned from the criticism
bestowed upon it by the Anthropological Society, and by the fact of
its being their first offering to their members. There can be no doubt
that it is the best epitome of matters anthropological now contained in
our language; and will be of great service to the student as a book of
reference.”--_British Medical Journal_, December 26, 1863.

“The difficulties which a reader experiences who studies Waitz’s
original German version--difficulties attendant on the involution
of his style, and the frequent mistiness of his forms of
expression--vanish in the English edition, which also differs from its
German prototype, inasmuch as the embarrassing references which Waitz
intercalated in his text are prudently cast down by Mr. Collingwood to
the foot of the page.... The student will but have to read it through,
in order to feel himself endowed with an enormous power of acquired
facts, which, if he duly assimilates, will enable him to wield a
tremendous weapon in controversy against the unskilled anthropologist.”
--_Reader_, November 7, 1863.

  London: LONGMAN, GREEN, and CO., Paternoster Row.

ANTHROPOLOGICAL REVIEW; AND Journal of the Anthropological Society of
London.


CONTENTS OF No. IV.--FEBRUARY 1864.

_Price Four Shillings._

  1. On the Human Hair as a Race-Character. By DR. PRUNER-BEY.
  2. POTT on the Myths of the Origin of Man and Language.
  3. Italian Anthropology.
  4. On the Scytho-Cimmerian Languages. By R. S. CHARNOCK, Esq., F.S.A.
  5. Notes on Scalping. By RICHARD F. BURTON.
  6. RENAN on the Shemitic Nations.
  7. Abnormal Distortion of the Wrist. By CHARLES H. CHAMBERS.
  8. Human Remains from Lough Gur, County Limerick.
  9. Danish Kitchen-middens. By CHARLES H. CHAMBERS.
  10. Miscellanea Anthropologica.

JOURNAL OF THE ANTHROPOLOGICAL SOCIETY OF LONDON:--

  CARTER BLAKE on the Anthropological Papers read at Newcastle.
  G. E. ROBERTS and PROFESSOR BUSK on the Opening of a Kist of the Stone
    Age.
  CAPTAIN EUSTACE W. JACOB on the Indian Tribes of Vancouver’s Island
  DR. JAMES HUNT on the Negro’s Place in Nature.
  C. R. MARKHAM on Quartz Cutting Instruments from Chanduy,
    near Guayaquil.
  G. E. ROBERTS on Mammalian Bones from Audley End.
  A. BRYSON on Arrow Heads from the Bin of Cullen.
  DR. F. R. FAIRBANK on Flint Arrow Heads from Canada.
  COUNT OSCAR REICHENBACH on the Vitality of the Negro Race.
  General Meeting of the Society.
  President’s Annual Address.
  R. LEE on the Extinction of Races.

  TRÜBNER & CO., 60, PATERNOSTER ROW.

ANTHROPOLOGICAL REVIEW, AND Journal Of the Anthropological Society of
London.

_VOL. I NOW READY._

CONTENTS.

  On the Study of Anthropology. By Dr. James Hunt, F.S.A., President
  A.S.L.

  Wild Men and Beast Children. By E. Burnet Tylor, F.A.S.L.

  On the Tribes of Loreto in Northern Peru. By Professor Raimondi.
  Translated from the Spanish by William Bollaert, F.A.S.L.

  A Day with the Fans. By Captain R. F. Burton, H.M. Consul at Fernando
  Po, and V.P.A.S.L.

  On the Difference between Man and the Lower Animals. By Theodor
  Bischoff. Translated from the German.

  Summary of the Evidence of the Antiquity of Man. By Dr. James Hunt,
  F.S.A.

  Huxley on Man’s Place in Nature.

  Jackson on Ethnology and Phrenology.

  Lyell on the Geological Evidence of the Antiquity of Man.

  Wilson’s Pre-historic Man.

  Pauly’s Ethnographical Account of the Peoples of Russia.

  Commixture of the Races of Man. By John Crawfurd, Esq., F.R.S.

  Burton’s Prairie Traveller.

  Owen on the Limbs of the Gorilla.

  Man and Beast. By Anthropos (C. Carter Blake).

  Dunn’s Medical Psychology.

  Human Remains from Moulin-Quignon. By A. Tylor, Esq., F.G.S. (_With
  an Illustration_)

  Notes of a cast of Microcephaly. By R. T. Gore, Esq., F.A.S.L.

  Notes on Sir C. Lyell’s Antiquity of Man. By John Crawfurd, Esq.,
  F.R.S.

  Falconer on the reputed Fossil Man of Abbeville.

  Miscellanea Anthropologica.

  Journal of the Anthropological Society of London.

  On the Science of Language. By R. S. Charnock, Esq., F.S.A., F.A.S.L.

  Fergusson on the Influence of Race on Art.

  On the Creation of Man and Substance of the Mind. By Prof. Rudolph
  Wagner.

  Pictet on the Aryan Race.

  Ethnological Inquiries and Observations. By the late Robert Knox, M.D.

  On the Application of the Anatomical Method to the Discrimination of
  Species. By the same.

  On the Deformations of the Human Cranium, supposed to be produced by
  Mechanical Means. By the same.


  History of the Proceedings of the Anthropological Society of Paris.
  By M. Paul Broca, Secretary-General.

  On the supposed increasing Prevalence of Dark Hair in England. By
  John Beddoe, M.D., F.A.S.L.

  The Abbeville Fossil Jaw. By M. A. de Quatrefages. Translated by G.
  F. Rolph, Esq.

  Miscellanea Anthropologica.

  On Cerebral Physiology.

  Seemann on the Inhabitants of the Fiji Islands. By A. A. Fraser,
  Esq., F.A.S.L.

  The relation of Man to the Inferior Forms of Animal Life. By Charles
  S. Wake, Esq., F.A.S.L.

  Proceedings of Anthropological Society of Paris.

  Anthropology at the British Association:--Dr. Hunt on Anthropological
  Classification; Mr. Carter Blake on South American Cranioscopy;
  Dr. Hunt on the Negro; Dr. W. Turner on Cranial Deformities; Mr.
  Duckworth on the Human Cranium from Amiens; Professor King on the
  Neanderthal Skull; Dr. Embleton on the Anatomy of a Young Chimpanzee;
  Mr. Carter Blake on Syndactyly; Mr. Roberts and Professor Busk on
  a Cist; Mr. Crawfurd on the Commixture of Man; Dr. Camps on Troops
  in India; Dr. Murray on Instinctive Actions; Mr. Samuelson on Life
  in the Atmosphere; Mr. Glaisher on the Influence of High Altitudes
  on Man; Mr. Hall on the Social Life of the Celts; Mr. Petrie on
  the Antiquities of the Orkneys; Lord Lovaine on Lacustrian Human
  Habitations; Professor Beete Jukes on certain Markings on the Horns
  of Megaceros Hibernicus; Mr. Crawfurd on Sir C. Lyell’s Antiquity of
  Man; Professor Phillips on the Antiquity of Man; Mr. Godwin-Austen
  on the Alluvial Accumulation in the Valleys of the Somme and Ouse;
  Mr. Wallace on Man in the Malay Archipelago; Mutu Coomára Swamy on
  the Ethnology of Ceylon; Mr. Crawfurd on the Origin of the Gypsies;
  Mr. Crawfurd on Celtic Languages; Mr. Charnock on Celtic Languages;
  Personal Recriminations in Section D; Concluding Remarks.

  Waitz’s Introduction to Anthropology.

  Kingsley’s Water Babies.

  Lunacy and Phrenology. By C. Carter Blake, Esq., F.G.S., F.A.S.L.

  The Rival Races, or the Sons of Joel.

  Ramsay on Geology and Anthropology.

  Baruch Spinoza.

  Anthropology in the Nursery.

  Miscellanea Anthropologica.

  JOURNAL OF THE ANTHROPOLOGICAL SOCIETY:--Tyler on Human Remains from
  Moulin Quignon; Schvarcz on Permanence of Type; Wake on Man and the
  Lower Animals; Bollaert on Populations of the New World; Marshall
  on Microcephaly; Busk on Human Remains from Chatham; Bendyshe on
  Anglo-Saxon Remains from Barrington; Charnock on Science of Language;
  W. Reade on Bush Tribes of Equatorial Africa; General Meeting of the
  Society; Carter Blake on Antiquity of the Human Race.

LONDON: TRÜBNER & CO., PATERNOSTER ROW.

Price Sixpence,

INTRODUCTORY ADDRESS

ON THE

STUDY OF ANTHROPOLOGY,

Delivered before the Anthropological Society of London, February 24,
1863,

BY JAMES HUNT, Ph.D., F.S A., F.R.S.L.,

Foreign Associate of the Anthropological Society of Paris,

PRESIDENT.

TRÜBNER & CO., 60, PATERNOSTER ROW, LONDON.

Price One Shilling, pp. 60,

ON THE NEGRO’S PLACE IN NATURE.

Read before the Anthropological Society of London, November 17th, 1863,

By JAMES HUNT, Ph.D., F.S.A., F.R.S.L.,

Foreign Associate of the Anthropological Society of Paris,

President of the Anthropological Society of London.

TRÜBNER & Co., 60, Paternoster Row, London.

Price 1s. 6d., post free,

Cases for Binding the First Volume of the ANTHROPOLOGICAL REVIEW AND
JOURNAL OF THE ANTHROPOLOGICAL SOCIETY OF LONDON.

  London: TRÜBNER and Co., Paternoster Row.

Price 6d., post free,

Annual Address to the Anthropological Society OF LONDON, Jan. 5th,
1864. By JAMES HUNT, Ph.D., F.S.A., F.R.S.L., Foreign Associate of the
Anthropological Society of Paris, President of the Anthropological
Society of London.

  London: TRÜBNER and Co., 60, Paternoster Row.





*** End of this Doctrine Publishing Corporation Digital Book "On the Phenomena of Hybridity in the Genus Homo" ***

Doctrine Publishing Corporation provides digitized public domain materials.
Public domain books belong to the public and we are merely their custodians.
This effort is time consuming and expensive, so in order to keep providing
this resource, we have taken steps to prevent abuse by commercial parties,
including placing technical restrictions on automated querying.

We also ask that you:

+ Make non-commercial use of the files We designed Doctrine Publishing
Corporation's ISYS search for use by individuals, and we request that you
use these files for personal, non-commercial purposes.

+ Refrain from automated querying Do not send automated queries of any sort
to Doctrine Publishing's system: If you are conducting research on machine
translation, optical character recognition or other areas where access to a
large amount of text is helpful, please contact us. We encourage the use of
public domain materials for these purposes and may be able to help.

+ Keep it legal -  Whatever your use, remember that you are responsible for
ensuring that what you are doing is legal. Do not assume that just because
we believe a book is in the public domain for users in the United States,
that the work is also in the public domain for users in other countries.
Whether a book is still in copyright varies from country to country, and we
can't offer guidance on whether any specific use of any specific book is
allowed. Please do not assume that a book's appearance in Doctrine Publishing
ISYS search  means it can be used in any manner anywhere in the world.
Copyright infringement liability can be quite severe.

About ISYS® Search Software
Established in 1988, ISYS Search Software is a global supplier of enterprise
search solutions for business and government.  The company's award-winning
software suite offers a broad range of search, navigation and discovery
solutions for desktop search, intranet search, SharePoint search and embedded
search applications.  ISYS has been deployed by thousands of organizations
operating in a variety of industries, including government, legal, law
enforcement, financial services, healthcare and recruitment.



Home