The author continues his proofs that the Egyptians were Caucasians several pages farther, which, as we do not know that he has any opponents, it is unnecessary to notice. His next proofs are drawn from "analogy," which we shall presently examine after a few remarks, which an urgent sense of duty impels us to make. When a person presents himself to "the world," as a teacher of "new facts," and which are produced too for the purpose of sustaining an unpopular theory, we are bound rigidly to examine his qualifications for the office. From the positive and unqualified assertions of Dr. N. upon the various subjects of Natural History, the hasty or uninformed reader would naturally infer, that the writer was an adept in one or more of its departments. We must however aver, and shall prove,-though a Naturalist would need no proof but a few quotations from his pages, that, although he seems to have read some books, and has garnered up some isolated facts of the Natural Sciences, he has never systematized or digested them, and has never studied, and has no knowledge of, a single one of them as a science. This is no light charge against one who makes such an imposing display of facts from the varied domains of nature, but it will soon appear, that we do not make it without consideration. Non omnes, qui citharam tenent, sunt citharœdi.

With his defination of species we have no fault to find, as far as it goes, and we can vouch that he has here gone by book. But reproduction of their like, is an important item, and is regarded by Buffon as the principal character, who accordingly defines species, as "a succession of similar Individuals which reproduce each other." There is an evident allusion to this established law of the vegetable and animal kingdoms, in Gen. i, 11, 12, 21, 24, 25, where plants and animals are severally said to produce "after their kind.” "Genus," he says, "is a more comprehensive term; it includes all the species of a class." p. 17.

To this we must demur, for it is one of the first things taught in the very elements of every natural science, that a class is one of the larger general divisions, and includes orders and genera. It would follow, according to our author, that a genus includes several orders and genera! For instance, the genus Man belongs to the class Mammalia; and as this class contains all the quadrupeds, of course

horses, dogs, cats and mice, nay, even whales, belong to the genus Man! His own illustration of genus and species is equally unfortunate with his definition, and could not possibly have been offered by one acquainted with Natural History in either of its branches. He says,

"The Ourang Outang, Apes, Baboons, etc., are all of one genus, though different species." p. 17.

He could not have made a much greater mistake, if he had arranged all the animals of the earth in one genus. These animals compose an order in the class Mammalia. Thir order comprises three distinct families, the first family two tribes, and the first tribe six genera! On the fol lowing page, the author himself speaks of a distinct tribe of Monkies in America, thus showing by his contradictory expressions, that he has never mastered even the terms of natural science. He is extremely fond of appealing to Naturalists in support of his position, and of dogmatizing in their name, but they will unanimously reply to him, in hæc fœdera non veni. We have not yet done with his science. Only six lines farther, we have the statement, that there are "thirty different species of Ape, several of the Baboon, and a number of the Monkey," thus using language that certainly implies generic or ordinal division, although he had just before referred all to one genus.

"This group," he continues, "is the nearest link to man, and when compared, they do not differ more than the Caucasian, the Mongul, the Malay, the Indian, and the Negro." p. 18.

Here again is an unfortunate want of accuracy. We have already mentioned, that instead of one genus, these animals compose an order comprising many genera. Consequently there must be a greater difference among them, to constitute families, tribes and genera, than among the varieties of the human race, which even the Doctor himself, would not attempt to separate into genera. In fact, if we take the extreme representations of "this group," there is as much difference between them as between a camel and a sheep, or between a condor and a screech-owl. We refer in proof, to the ourang outang at one end, and to the maki of Madagascar, at the other end of the group.

The indefiniteness of the language in the last quotation, requires that we consider his statement in more than one aspect. If the author intends a comparison between "group"

and "man," he will doubtless stand alone in his system of classification. We know of no Naturalists, who refer dogfaced baboons and ring-tailed monkies to the genus Man; or Malays and Bushmen to a genus of Apes. Even Virey, who could dare any thing on this subject, comes no nearer, we believe, than to suggest a cross between the Hottentot and Baboon. But although the above view might very naturally be taken of the passage, and is truly derived from its grammatical structure,-"they" having no proper antecedent except "group" and "man,"-yet we doubt if it be the one actually contemplated by the writer. We rather suppose, that he intended a comparison among the species of this "group," and meant to say, that "they did not differ" from one another "nore than the Caucasian, Mongul," etc. This we have above shown to be incorrect. But our author's position required him to maintain, that in an equal number of allied species in any genus of that group, there is no greater difference than among the varieties of the human race; and therefore, specific distinction being allowed. in the one case, it may as justly be predicated of the other. This we presume to be his argument, and it is certainly specious on a superficial view.

We might deny his assertion of equal similarity or dissimilarity. But granting the assumption, we are not bound to his conclusion, as every Naturalist knows. He has himself told us, (p. 17.) that "two races are considered specifically different, if they are distinguished from each other, by some peculiarities which one cannot be supposed to have acquired, or the other lost, through any known operation of physical causes." Now as no law has ever been discovered or intimated, determining the space of specific separation, Naturalists often unhesitatingly pronounce two individuals to be distinct species, which have much fewer points of difference than two others, which they unhesitatingly decide to be only varieties of one species. If then it should be proved, that there is a much closer resemblance between five acknowledged species of baboon, than there is between the five varieties of mankind, it will not necessarily follow that the latter constitute distinct species. It is an old axiom, magis et minus non diversificant speciem. It sometimes happens, that the Naturalist does not doubt the specific distinctness of two individuals, although he finds it difficult to define their distinctive characters. And, on the other hand,

two forms which are susceptible of easy defination, may be shown to belong to one species, by numerous intermediate forms connecting the extremes, which set all definition at defiance. Familiar instances of these facts, will readily occur in the varieties of some domesticated animals, and cultivated fruits and vegetables. An accomplished Naturalist of our acquaintance, met the Zoologists of London at the Zoological Gardens in that city, where they attempted to discriminate the Wolves, but could not decide about the species, for they were of all colors and sizes.* Yet there would be no difficulty in defining the extreme forms. And even where there is sufficient scope for a definite description of varieties, as in the case of the dog, sheep, etc., yet as we know in some instances, and have reason to presume in others, that "physical causes have produced the dissimilarity," the varieties are referred to one species. We shall have occasion to make further application of this subject hereafter.

"It would be almost an anomaly in nature, if man should be restricted to one species." p. 17.

If by anomaly, is here meant an exception to a general fact, we have only to show that it is far from being a solitary one. But if he means an exception to established or recognized law, which is the proper meaning of the word, we should like to have that law enunciated, and its nature and conditions defined, which we suspect have never been attempted, and probably were never before dreamed of. But suppose the fact to be an "anomaly," are there no anomalies in nature? But it would not be "almost an anomaly," for there are many instances in the vegetable and animal kingdoms, of genera with single species. If it were an anomaly, when viewed merely by the light of Natural History, that the genus Man comprised but a single species; we

These Naturalists concluded, that the European and American Wolves were the same species. The susceptibility to great variation in the wolf, together with the fertility of the offspring produced between that animal and the dog, gives strong confirmation to the opinion of some, that the latter had its origin in the former.

+ The Giraffe and Hippopotamus were formerly supposed to belong to genera comprising single species, but which are now supposed to comprise two. We are not aware, however, that the Naturalists who separated into species what were before deemed varieties, did it on the ground, that it would be an "anomaly in nature" if the genera were "restricted to one species."

think that in its moral aspect, it would be a still stranger "anomaly" if it comprised two or more.

The author continues,-"I might thus go on through the whole animal kingdom," i. e. to enumerate genera with more than one species. We do not consider this as a strictly honest mode of dismissing the subject, when the impression will be inevitably left upon the mind of the reader, that there are no instances of genera with single species. If he knew any thing of the subject, he could have mentioned several. If he did not, then he asserted without knowledge. He says again,-"The same law(?) is seen in the vegetable kingdom-look at the species of oak, hickory, and other trees-look at our fruits, flowers, etc.," which is all we are favored under this head. If need be, we can furnish hundreds of genera with single species. We are unwilling to characterize such a process of argument by its appropriate epithets.

We are next informed, that "the whole range of Natural History proves another law, viz.: that particular species of both plants and animals are suited to certain climates and soils and no other." In illustration of this, we are presented with a few observations upon the distribution of plants and animals over the globe, after the same manner as under the previous topic; after which he thus continues:

"Now I would ask, if this be a general law, by which nature is governed through all creation, is it reasonable that man alone should form an exception? None of these plants and animals, can be propagated out of the climate to which they are adapted by natureand man forms no exception to the general law. The White man cannot live in tropical Africa, or the African in the frigid zone."

p. 19. The author does not seem to be aware, that this law of distribution, has something to do with genera as well as species, and that we might, therefore bend the force of the analogy to the establishment and distribution of human genera upon the globe. But if the law were so circumscribed by impassible limits, that nought else could escape its confinement, we should nevertheless conclude, when we consider the whole nature and character of man morally as well as physically, that it would be "reasonable he should form an exception." The destiny, capacity and varied wants of man, so different from those of the lower orders of creation, would lead us a priori to such a conclusion: and the whole history of man has shown him possessed of