The Ishmaelites differ from the Japhethites, and approach the physical character of the Shemites,—in the more globular form and greater elevation of the forehead; in the more rounded form, and less expansion of the malar bones; in a narrower and more elevated nose; in the perpendicular formation of the alveolar margin of the jaws; in the formation of the lips; and in the prominence of the chin. They differ from the Shemites, and approach the Japhethites, by a lower forehead; a greater expansion of the suborbital region of the face and of the cheek bones; and a less developed chin.

In intermediate species, especially those which approach each other closely,-and more especially a nomadic race, the stationary tribes of which have, from policy, intermingled with others, we may naturally expect to find many individuals possessed of the characteristics of the next series. But, although the approaching species may not be very strongly distinguished by their physical characters, the distinction becomes immediately and strikingly apparent, when we apply the test of functions, and the evidence of history. Let us grant, for instance, that many of the Turks, Arabians, and Persians (all of whom belong to the Ishmaelitic species), approach the Shemites in physical characters. It is evident, as well from their histories, and their physical characters, as from their temperaments, indicated by their skins and functional powers, that they form a distinct species, with human powers altogether unequal to the task of competing with the Shemites in the onward progress of improvement and power. We say nothing now of the causes which have con

tributed to elevate the Turks, Arabians, and Persians, to be the connecting links of their species with the Shemites, which properly belongs to their specific histories; but apart from this consideration, they undoubtedly make the nearest approach to the Shemites; and will, probably, in the fulness of time, advance rapidly beyond the Japhethites, who now excel them in the useful and ornamental arts of life. But it is when the types of each species, as some of the nomadic tribes of Central Asia, or the Indians of America, are made the subjects of comparisonand, more especially, when the more remote species, as the Japhethic or Canaanitic, and the Shemitic are compared, that the contrast is immedi ately and obviously manifest.

The conclusions to which we arrive from the foregoing premises are the following:

First-That, between individuals of the same species, one compared with another, the capacity and form of the skull, and size of the face, together with the temperaments of the individuals, are important items for consideration in estimating intellectual and moral power.

Secondly-That, between individuals, or races, of different species, one species compared with another, the functions or temperaments of each species are of primary importance to estimate intellectual and moral power; subject, however, to modification and allowance, for the comparative form and capacity of the skull and face.

Thirdly-That the anatomical and physiological differences between the races of men, constitute them distinct species.

All the historic facts of the human species, and all the scientific principles of classification, support and confirm these conclusions. We cannot, therefore, withhold the expression of our surprise, that men of the highest intellect of our day, after detailing the facts with clearness, precision, and candor, have sought to escape from the conclusion, because the several species pass into one another by imperceptible gradations. That is, from the blackest, and most brutal Canaanite, to the fairest, most intellectual and moral European, every shade of complexion, and every grade of moral and intellectual quality, may be traced in a regularly progressive series. The fact is undeniable. There is such a gradation of color, and of moral and intellectual qualities; but the inference that, therefore, all men must be of one species is contrary to all the principles of classification in zoology. If admitted in the classification of man, the highest, and most important subject of natural history, it must also be admitted in relation to every subject; which would subvert the science. It cannot be supposed that these gentlemen were unac quainted with the difficulty of classifying the vegetable and animal kingdoms, from this very cause. Not, indeed, that each class, order, genus, and species, does not present types sufficiently distinct to afford subjects for correct classification in each division; but that, on each side of these types, to both extremes, individuals run into other divisions, which make it extremely difficult to classify them satisfactorily. The ingenious circular system of McLeay is founded on the fact, that each group in the natural kingdom is connected, at each extremity, with ano

ther above and below it, forming a circle; that however conspicuous the typical examples may be in each species, yet that they recede from each other, until, at each extremity, they pass, as it were, into other species. Eels connect reptiles with fishes; bats and the monotrema connect birds with quadrupeds; and the beautiful little humming bird, which feeds on the nectar prepared for the scarcely less beautiful butterfly and the industrious bee, unites birds and insects. Nature makes no sudden bounds in her creative energies. She passes from one division to another by such easy and skilful processes, that the mind of the most ingenious man, in tracing her works, is lost in wonder at the apparent ease with which she threw off organic beings, endowed with all the varieties of forms, powers, habits, instincts, and faculties, approaching to, and receding from each other, to fill up the whole space of the inorganic world she had constructed.

The argument, therefore, that all men are of one species, because the different species run together by easy gradations, amounts to nothing; for "the anatomical and physiological structure and functions of the different races of men are sufficient to constitute distinct species."

CHAPTER X.

WHETHER ANY, AND WHAT INFERENCES, CAN BE DRAWN FROM ACCIDENTAL VARIETIES, SPRINGING UP IN THE HUMAN FAMILY, TO ENABLE US TO ACCOUNT FOR THE DIFFERENCES OBSERVED AMONG MEN.

HAVING, as we hope, disposed of the analogies so abundantly used to confirm the doctrine of the unity of the human species, we now propose to examine the theory that all of the varieties of the human family have sprung from the black race. The theory requires that Negroes should be the great original prototypes of mankind; because, although Albinos have been known to spring from them, none of the dark races has ever arisen from the white race. Thus all mankind are, in fact, Negroes, whose progenitors owe their colors, and physical differences of organization, to diseased or accidental generation. This is somewhat humiliating; but, if true, we must bear it with philosophic patience, notwithstanding. Whatever was the color of Adam, we are taught that his name signifies red; and we are told that the daughters of men who captivated his immediate descendants, "were fair to look upon." No matter. It is necessary that all men should be of one species, to sustain the Mosaic account of the creation, according to the opinions of theorists, and these little discrepancies are overlooked, or, if seen, are too trifling to be noticed. Adam and Eve, and Noah, and his