PLANTS AND ANIMALS.
The question respecting the origin of animals and plants has likewise undergone a similar flux of beliefs, but with different result. Whatever the conclusions may be with regard to the origin of man, naturalists of the present day very generally agree, that there was no one universal centre of propagation for plants and animals; but that the same conditions of soil, moisture, heat, and geographical situation, always produce a similarity of species; or, what is equivalent, that there were many primary centres, each originating species, which spread out from these centres and covered the earth. This doctrine was held by early naturalists to be irreconcilable with the Scripture account of the creation, and was therefore denounced as heretical. Linnæus and his contemporaries drew up a pleasing picture, assigning the birth-place of all forms of life to one particular fertile spot, situated in a genial climate, and so diversified with lofty mountains and declivities, as to present all the various temperatures requisite for the sustenance of the different species of animal and vegetable life. The most exuberant types of flora and fauna are found within the tropical regions, decreasing in richness and profusion towards either pole; while man in his greatest perfection occupies the temperate zone, degenerating in harmony of features, in physical symmetry, and in intellectual vigor in either direction. Within this temperate zone is placed the hypothetical cradle of the human race, varying in locality according to religion and tradition. The Caucasians are referred for their origin to Mount Caucasus, the Mongolians to Mount Altai, and the Africans to Mount Atlas. Three primordial centres of population have been assigned to the three sons of Noah—Arabia, the Semitic; India, the Japetic; and Egypt, the Hamitic centre. Thibet, and the mountains surrounding the Gobi desert, have been designated as the point from which a general distribution was made; while the sacred writings mention four rich and beautiful valleys, two of which are watered by the Tigris and Euphrates, as the birth-place of man. It was formerly believed that in the beginning, the primeval ocean covered the remaining portion of the globe, and that from this central spot the waters receded, thereby extending the limits of terrestrial life.
Admitting the unity of origin, conjecture points with apparent reason to the regions of Armenia and of Iran, in western Asia, as the cradle of the human race. Departing from this geographical centre, in the directions of the extremities of the continent, the race at first degenerated in proportion to distance. Civilization was for many ages confined within these central limits, until by slow degrees, paths were marked out to the eastward and to the westward, terminating the one upon the eastern coast of Asia, and the other upon the American shores of the Pacific.
PRIMORDIAL CENTERS.
Concerning the distribution of plants and animals, but one general opinion is now sustained with any degree of reason. The beautifully varied systems of vegetation with which the habitable earth is clothed, springing up in rich, spontaneous abundance; the botanical centres of corresponding latitudes producing resemblance in genera without identity of species; their inability to cross high mountains or wide seas, or to pass through inhospitable zones, or in any way to spread far from the original centre—all show conclusively the impossibility that such a multitude of animal and vegetable tribes, with characters so diverse, could have derived their origin from the same locality, and disappearing entirely from their original birth-place, sprung forth in some remote part of the globe. Linnæus, and many others of his time, held that all telluric tribes, in common with mankind, sprang from a single pair, and descended from the stock which was preserved by Noah. Subsequently this opinion was modified, giving to each species an origin in some certain spot to which it was particularly adapted by nature; and it was supposed that from these primary centres, through secondary causes, there was a general diffusion throughout the surrounding regions.
A comparison of the entomology of the old world and the new, shows that the genera and species of insects are for the most part peculiar to the localities in which they are found. Birds and marine animals, although unrestricted in their movements, seldom wander far from specific centres. With regard to wild beasts, and the larger animals, insurmountable difficulties present themselves; so that we may infer that the systems of animal life are indigenous to the great zoölogical provinces where they are found.
On the other hand, the harmony which exists between the organism of man and the methods by which nature meets his requirements, tends conclusively to show that the world in its variety was made for man, and that man is made for any portion of the earth in which he may be found. Whencesoever he comes, or howsoever he reaches his dwelling-place, he always finds it prepared for him. On the icy banks of the Arctic Ocean, where mercury freezes and the ground never softens, the Eskimo, wrapped in furs, and burrowing in the earth, revels in grease and train-oil, sustains vitality by eating raw flesh and whale-fat; while the naked inter-tropical man luxuriates in life under a burning sun, where ether boils and reptiles shrivel upon the hot stone over which they attempt to crawl. The watery fruit and shading vegetation would be as useless to the one, as the heating food and animal clothing would be to the other.
The capability of man to endure all climates, his omnivorous habits, and his powers of locomotion, enable him to roam at will over the earth. He was endowed with intelligence wherewith to invent methods of migration and means of protection from unfavorable climatic influence, and with capabilities for existing in almost any part of the world; so that, in the economy of nature the necessity did not exist with regard to man for that diversity of creation which was deemed requisite in the case of plants and animals.
The classification of man into species or races, so as to be able to designate by his organization the family to which he belongs, as well as the question of his origin, has been the subject of great diversity of opinion from the fact that the various forms so graduate into each other, that it is impossible to determine which is species and which variety. Attempts have indeed been made at divisions of men into classes according to their primeval and permanent physiological structure, but what uniformity can be expected from such a classification among naturalists who cannot so much as agree what is primeval and what permanent?
The tests applied by ethnologists for distinguishing the race to which an individual belongs, are the color of the skin, the size and shape of the skull—determined generally by the facial angle—the texture of the hair, and the character of the features. The structure of language, also, has an important bearing upon the affinity of races; and is, with some ethnologists, the primary criterion in the classification of species. The facial angle is determined by a line drawn from the forehead to the front of the upper jaw, intersected by a horizontal line passing over the middle of the ear. The facial angle of a European is estimated at 85°, of a Negro at 75°, and of the ape at 60°. Representations of an adult Troglodyte measure 35°, and of a Satyr 30°. Some writers classify according to one or several of these tests, others consider them all in arriving at their conclusions.
SPECIFIC CLASSIFICATIONS.
Thus, Virey divides the human family into two parts: those with a facial angle of from eighty-five to ninety degrees—embracing the Caucasian, Mongolian, and American; and those with a facial angle of from seventy-five to eighty-two degrees—including the Malay, Negro, and Hottentot. Cuvier and Jaquinot make three classes, placing the Malay and American among the subdivisions of the Mongolian. Kant makes four divisions under four colors: white, black, copper, and olive. Linnæus also makes four: European, whitish; American, coppery; Asiatic, tawny; and African, black. Buffon makes five divisions and Blumenbach five. Blumenbach's classification is based upon cranial admeasurements, complexion, and texture of the hair. His divisions are Caucasian or Aryan, Mongolian, Ethiopian, Malay, and American. Lesson makes six divisions according to colors: white, dusky, orange, yellow, red, and black. Bory de St. Vincent arranges fifteen stocks under three classes which are differenced by hair: European straight hair, American straight hair, and crisped or curly hair. In like manner Prof. Zeune designates his divisions under three types of crania for the eastern hemisphere, and three for the western, namely, high skulls, broad skulls, and long skulls. Hunter classifies the human family under seven species; Agassiz makes eight; Pickering, eleven; Desmoulins, sixteen; and Crawford, sixty-three. Dr. Latham, considered by many the chief exponent of the science of ethnology in England, classifies the different races under three primary divisions, namely: Mongolidæ, Atlantidæ, and Japetidæ. Prichard makes three principal types of cranial conformation, which he denominates respectively,