APPENDIX, N° II.

ON THE DESCENT OF MANKIND FROM A

SINGLE PAIR.

ANOTHER Subject connected with the Mosaic account of the creation, in which the truth of that record is apparently implicated, is, the descent of mankind from a single pair. Some writers, indeed, who defend the hypothesis of distinct species, have disclaimed the idea of considering that hypothesis as contradictory to Revelation; and appeal to the acknowledged purpose, and indisputable conciseness, of the history given by Moses, as rendering it unnecessary to adhere to so strict and literal an interpretation of the text. But whatever possibility there might be of reconciling the account of Moses with any other hypothesis than that of the original creation of a single pair, and no more; it is evident that such is the plain and natural interpretation of his history. And on this ground a popular argument is sometimes

raised against his authority. It is asserted, that the different characters of the several races of mankind are inconsistent with the idea of a common descent, and constitute distinct species; and in proof of this point stress is particularly laid upon the form of the skull, which varies in the European, the Mongole, the Negro, the American, and the Malay race, very remarkably in their respective extremes; and certain varieties in the bones are brought forward, especially of the fore-arm and heel: to which are added, the striking diversities of colour. The exact details of this different organization properly belong to treatises written expressly on this subject, and I must leave them to be sought there. Without entering upon it with anatomical accuracy, there is evidently a considerable variety in the external configuration, and enough to make it a natural question whether such varieties can be accounted for on any other supposition than that of distinct species.

This is a question which can scarcely, in the present state of our knowledge, be treated in any other mode than that of analogy. Are there any varieties among

brute animals, confessedly belonging to the same original species, approaching to those which are so evident among mankind? Are there any causes to which we can confidently trace those varieties? Do similar possible causes of variety exist in the circumstances of different branches of the human race? These are the only lines of argument by which we can approach the present inquiry.

I. It is undeniable that the varieties which spring up, and are perpetuated, among inferior animals, are no less numerous or remarkable, than those exhibited by the inhabitants of the different corners of the globe. This is a fact familiar to the most common observation. While the inhabitant of a sea-port, or crowded city, is surprised by every possible shade of hue in the human complexion, and such varieties of countenance as must naturally result from a difference in the facial angle varying from 85 to 70 degrees; the traveller through the country finds the brute creation exhibiting similar differences, and deviations not less remarkable from the original model. He

sees, for instance, in almost every country, a prevailing breed of oxen: the red of Devonshire, the white-faced breed of Herefordshire, the hornless breed naturalized from Poland, the stately brown of Yorkshire, the lean and ragged Alderney, the black heifer of the Scottish hills. Among horses there is no less variety; as, between the tall and bony draught-horses of Lincolnshire, the Scotch galloway, the Welsh or Shetland poney, and the breed of racers. Again, we find an acknowledged difference in the breed of sheep, as exhibited by the horned breed, that of Leicestershire, the South-down, and the Welsh, with all the intermediate varieties. Hogs vary no less remarkably, in the shape of the head, the length and size of the leg; and one race, which is not uncommon in some parts of England, has the hoof undivided*. I do not instance the numerous races of dogs, because, owing to the extraordinary difference among them, some naturalists have controverted Buffon's theory of a single species; though even if that belief is given up, very important deviations will remain

* Noticed also by Aristotle and Pliny.

to be accounted for. The smaller animals, as fowls, hares, rabbits, &c. afford similar examples of variety, which it is not necessary to notice, except to show, that such is the plan which Nature is universally accustomed to follow.

Now, with regard to the degree of difference, it must be confessed that the species which have been alluded to, exhibit peculiarities no less striking than those of the European or Negro. A series of skulls, from the large head of the wild horse to the short head of the Hungarian breed, or the slender head of an English racer, would form a more remarkable instance of deviation than that procured by the facial angle of Camper or zygomatic processes of Blumenbach, in the human race. No difference in the os calcis, or ulna, between the American and European, is so considerable as that which exists between the comparative length of leg in different breeds of hogs, or the size of the head and legs in proportion to the rest of the body in sheep. The nature of the covering of the animal, whether of the wool among sheep, or of the hair in dogs and goats, varies no less