another. I know too well the distance there is between
animal interjections and articulate speech, and I am as well
aware as anyone that to use such an instrument, so as to
produce from it true languages, cau only be accomplished by
the superior intelligence of man.

Agassiz, when he had arrived at this point, must have
felt that he had lost himself, and that, in trying to harmonise
the idea of a single human species with that of several races
of distinct origin, he was entering an endless labyrinth. His
last work betrays the signs of this embarrassment only too
clearly. It is probably in the hope of escaping from it that
the author has finally even denied the existence of species.
After having again rejected the criterion drawn from crossing
and degrees of fertility, he adds: "With it disappears in its
turn the pretended reality of species as opposed to the mode
of existence of genera, families, orders, classes and branches.
Reality of existence is, in fact, possessed by individuals alone."
Thus, from adhering solely to morphology, from a disregard
of the ]jhysical side of the question, from having allowed
themselves to be guided by a logic which is only founded
upon incomplete data, Agassiz and Darwin have arrived at
a similar result. Both have disregarded this great fact,
intelligible to common sense, demonstrated by science, and



A^assiz's Theory. 159

which governs everything in zoology, as it does in botany,
the division, namely, of organised beings into elementary and
fundamental groups which propagate in space and time. But
Darwin, starting from the 2>}ienomena of variations which
are presented by these beings, considers f^pecies as only races.
Agassiz, entirely preoccupied with the lyhenomcna of fixity,
finally considers individuals only as existing in living
nature. Both forget that the great Buffon passed suc-
cessively to both these extremes only to return again to the
doctrine which includes and explains all facts, and which
may be summed up in these worJs : distinction of race and
species.

III. In spite of these dogmatic assertions, when it comes
to application of any kind whatever, Agassiz, like Lamarck
in former times, and Darwin in our own day, is obliged to
use the word species in the sense in which it is employed by
so many others. In the memoir, from which I have already
quoted, animal and vegetable species are constantly being
discussed. Their geographical distribution serves as a founda-
tion to the theory of human origins. The author admits that
they could not have arisen upon one and the same point of
the globe ; that the centres of creation were numerous, and
that the species diverging from these centres give to the
actual flora and fauna all their characteristic features.

Up to this point Agassiz has only accepted the doctrine of
centres of creation, a doctrine entirely French in origin,
having been formulated by Desmoulins and developed by
^[. Edwards.

What is due to Agassiz is the reproduction, in the name
of science, of a theory at first proposed by La Peyrere in the
name of theology : giving to man the whole world as his
original home: the admission that the human races oricjinated
in the same places as the gi'oups of animal and vegetable
species, and the connection of one of these races with each
centre of creation ; the multiplication of the number of
human creations to such a degree as to profess that " man
was created by nations," endowed from the first with all
8



i6o The Hjinian Species.

their distinctive cliaiactcrs, ami cacli speaking its own
special language.

There is, at first sight, no aLsunlity in the idea itself,
nothing at all contradictory to anything Avhich we have as
yet met with. We have seen above that physiology leads to
the conclusion that " human groups are io all appearance
descended from one primitive pair." It goes no further than
that. Anyone who confines himself to inferences drawn
from this order of facts might, therefore, accept the theory of
Agassiz as, it is true, a very gratuitous hypothesis, but con-
venient in order to account for the distribution and actual
diversity of human types.

This is no longer the case when we turn to another branch
of the natural sciences, zovlugical and botanical geof/raphy.
We then can easily prove that the theories of Agassiz tend to
make an exception of man, to place him at variance with the
general laws of the geographical distribution of all other
organised beings, and, consequently, that they are false.

IV. I fully agree with the views of Agassiz, as far as
centres of creation, or rather centres of appearance are
concerned.

All who confine themselves to the data of observation and
experiment will see at once that all animal and vegetable
species could not have originated upon any one spot of the
globe. The former shows us, in various regions, diflerent
types and sj)ecies, living naturally in countries which present
•almost precisely the same conditions of existence. The latter
teaches us that we can transport the greater number of
species from one region to anotl'.er, and that they will
prosper there, if the conditions of existence are the same ;
that, on the contrary, arctic and tropical species cannot, even
Ifrnporarily, be submitted to the action of the same conditions;
that neither can withstand the action of a temperate climate.
It is irnpossil)le witli all these facts to avoid the conclusion
tiiat j)lants and animals had several points of appearance.

But if I accept this doctrine as the only one reconcilable
with facts, it is iijjon the coiiditiim of adopting it entirely,



Agassi zs Theory. i6i

and as developed by studies upon the geographical distribu-
tion of all living beings. Now, works of this kind are
numerous at the present time.

For all phanerogamous plants we have the work of M.
Ad. de Candolle, which has been a standard work ever since
its appearance.

Animals have not yet had their de Candolle. The great
work of M. Alphonse Edwards will partly fill up this gap
for the more southern regions of the globe. In the mean-
time, important investigations have been made in some of
the principal classes. Buffon, by his admirable researches
upon the geography of mammals, opened the way, in which
he has been followed by the two Geoffroy Saint-Hilaires,
Fr. Cuvier, and Andrew Murray ; Dumeril and Bibron have
studied reptiles from the same point of view ; Frabricius,
Latrcille, Macley, Spcnce, Kirby, and Lacordaire have done
the same for insects ; M. Milne Edwards has worked out the
distribution of the Crustacea ; I have endeavoured .to do as
much for the annelids. Finally, a great number of works
bearing upon the lower groups have long been known to
science, and Agassiz him.self has largely contributed to in-
crease our knowledge in this direction.

A certain number of. general facts stand out from this
mass of research, which we call laws. If the theory of
Agassiz is true, it ought to agree with these laws. Now the
disagreement is apparent from the outset.

Let us prove, in the first place, that this theory includes
two very distinct ideas : that of the original cosmopolitanism
of the human species; and, secondly, that of a geographical
connection between the human race and the animal or vege-
table groups observed in a common centre. Let us examine
the truth and error contained in this last statement.

Agassiz holds that the influence of the centre of appearance
is general and absolute. It extends to all the products of
the soil as well as to those of fresh and salt waters. A
country is just as much characterised by its plants and
animals as by its human beings. In his opinion, an esseu-



1 62 The Human Species.

tially local force seems to have produced all beings, or at
least to have imprinted upon them a common mark.

This generalisation was inevitable. Any one who wishes
to attach a human race to each centre of appearance is com-
pelled to localise in each one of them the original cause of
all the animal and vegetable forms which are indigenous in
it. For all living beings geographical coincidence must bo
ab.s()lute.

Now there is generally no such coincidence. From the
waters of a river to the banks which enclose it, the contrast
may be striking. This is exactly what was shown by the dis-
coveries of Agassiz himself in the ichth3'ology of the Amazon.
To anyone who accepts the results published by the illus-
trious traveller, it is evident that this fauna may be divided
into groups nuich more narrowly confined than those of
terrestrial fauna. The same fact may be observed upon
the shores of two seas separated by even a very narrow
strip of land. The terrestrial fauna and flora are the same
throughout the whole extent of the isthmus of Suez, whilst
M. Edwards has not found a single species of Crustacea
common to both the Mediterranean and the Red Sea, and
the study of annelids has led me to the same result.

Moreover, the same region may be the centre of appear-
ance for one class of animals, but by no means for another.
Australia, for example, is one of the most characteristic
centres for mammals, and stands alone from this point of
view among the surrounding countries. "With respect to
in.sects Australia agrees, on the contrary, with New Zealand,
New Caledonia and the neighbouring islands. I have bor-
rowed this l.'ust fact from Lacordaire. It has the more value
since this entomologist has multipUcd the centres of appear-
ance to a much greater extent than Agassiz, and has, there-
fore, made their characterisation easier.

Tiius the coincidence admitted by Agassiz, far from extend-
ing to all tiie organised beings of a region, does not even exist
in certain cases between the different classes of animals alone.

V. Agassiz divides the entire surface of the irlobe into nine



A^^assizs Theory. 163

great regions or kingdoms. I cannot here give in detail tbe
numerous criticisms to wliicli the fixed limits and characteri-
sation of these centres arc open. I shall confine myself to a
few short remarks upon each.

1. Polynesian Kingdom. We shall see presently that it
is impossible to regard Polynesia as a centre of human
apix;arance. This region has been entirely peopled by
migration from the Indian Archipelago, the history of which
has been partly preserved. The first kingdom of Agassiz
must be struck out as far as we are concerned ; it is an
exclusively animal and vegetable centre. Agassiz, moreover,
though he supports it in the text and upon the map, does
not assign it a place in the illustrated table, in which he
sums up his ideas.

2. Australian Kingdom. Agassiz includes New Guinea
in this kingdom. He thus destroys the homogeneity of the
mammalogical fauna. At the same time he unites the
several human races of Australia with the Negrittoes and
Papuans. This alone destroys all unity of type.

3. Malay 01' Indian Kingdom. This kingdom com-
prises India, the Malay Archipelago, and the Andaman
Islands. Now, anterior to the Aryan conquest, Yellows and
Blacks lived in India. The latter are still found in a pure
state^in the peninsula of Malacca, and in the Andaman Is-
lands ; IMalay.sia presents a perfect mixture of most ditferent
races, from the White to the Negro. The Malays, properly
so-called, are much rather a population levelled by the action
of Islamism, than a race in the true sense of the word ; thoy
present in a high degree the characters of intercrossing. All
these facts protest against the idea of making these regions
a centre of iiuman appearance.

4. Hottentot Fauna. Agassiz abandons the expression
kingdom in speaking of the south of Africa, Avithout giving
any rea.son for the change. Whatever the cause may be,
this is one of the least unfavourable regions for the applica-
tion of his theory. Froni a geological or botanical point of
view, South Africa constitutes a veritable centre. The



164 The Iliiuian Species.

Bosjesman and the Hottentot might bo considered as the
characteristic human type. But tlie Negroes of Delagoa and
the Kaffirs still protest against this partial coincidence.

5. Afncan Kingdom. This region is considered by
Agassiz to comprise the rest of Africa, with the exception of
the shores of the Mediterranean, He adds Madagascar and
the southern half of the Arabian peninsula. Now, from a
mammalogical point of view, Madagascar forms a little centre
of itself, whilst the human population is very mixed. The
Hovas are very slightly modified Malays, and the languages
of the Sacalaves themselves indicate relations with the
Malayo-Polynesians. As to the continental portion of the
kingdom, it is enough to remark that it includes Negroes,
Ab^'ssinians, Arabs, etc. History, as well as the present
state of things, protests against the connection made in this
case by the author.

6. European Kinr/dom. TJiis division Agassiz considers
as comprising the entire circumference of the Mediterranean,
Persia and Beloocliistan. Consequently it embraces very
different fauna and flora; it mixes up Aryan, Semitic
and Chamitic populations, and takes no account of history.
Agassiz himself recognises this fact, and declares that he has
only taken into consideration pre-historic times. Since the
(Quaternary epoch, however, France alone has siipported
tribes Avhich were tall and dolichocephalic, .'tnd others which
were short and brach^x-ephalic. Finally, although Agassiz
includi-s the Persians with the Europeans, he leaves out the
Hindoos who are ethnologically connected with them, and
places them in an entirely ditferent kingdom.

7. Minitjolldii or AsUdlc Klui/doin. IMiis kingdom en-
clo.scs all the central portion of Asia, beginning at the
JJolor and the Himalayas, and extending as far as Jajjan.
'J'Ik! Mongfjl is taken as the human type of this vast extent
of country. liut Agassiz forgets the Aryans of the Bolor,
tlie wliitt; Jutehis, the Japanese of the same type, the Ainos,
etc. He unit(s, therefore, jx-oplc which belong to at least
two extreme types of mankind.



Agassi zs Theory. 165

8. Aw^^^an Klnr/dom. Agassiz makes but one king-
dom of the Avhole of America, whilst all zoologists and
botanists are agreed in dividing it into at least two great
and distinctly characterised centres. He adopts the opinion
of Morton, who only admits one human race in America,
with the exception of the Esquimaux. Now, since the
jiublication of d'Orbigny's Homme Americain, it is no
longer possible to believe in this uniformity. The numerous
investigations which have been undertaken upon this ques-
tion have, moreover, proved still more strongly the multi-
plicity of races admitted by this traveller. Again, if the
human races of America are compared with those of the old
world, "we shall find, with a few exceptions, a very close
connection â– with Asia, especially in certain populations of
Central America : if we compare the fauna and flora, the
connection is, on the contrary, closer in North America.
These facts are in direct opposition with the theory of
Agassiz.

9. Arctic Kingdom. This latter kingdom deserves a
little more attention than the others. It comprises all the
northern regions of the two continents. The southern limit
is somewhat arbitrarily fixed by Agassiz at the zone of
forests. In no region of the world does man meet with such
identical conditions of existence, for all are governed by cold.
It would seem, thorefitre, to be better able than any other to
justify the author's theory, and yet facts agree but very
slightly with it.

Agassiz characterises this kingdom by the existence of
one plant and six species of animals, five mammals and one
bird. The plant is tlie Iceland lichen (cenomyce rangiferina).
Now, this lichen is so little characteristic of polar re^^ions
that it is found in many parts of France, and even in the
neighbourhood of Paris at Fontainebleau. M. Decaisne
believes that our hares and rabbits live upon it in winter, as
the reindeer do in Ija})land. Further, the observations
recently made in Greenland by the German Polar Expe-
dition, show that in this countrv, whicli, of all countries in



1 66 TJic n inn an Species.

the Arctic Kingdom, should most readily adapt itself to the
conceptions of Agassiz, and which is inhabited by pure-
blooded Esquimaux, possesses scarcely one vegetable species
which can be said to be peculiar to it, and that a great
number of them are found in the Alps, and upon the summits
of the Vosf^es. It is a result of the return of heat after the
glacial epoch, the species which resisted it having emigrated
in altitude as well as in latitude.

In animal species, the white bear and the walrus are
really polar. The same may be said of the Greenland seal
considered as a species. But as a type we meet with it
everywhere ; as a genus it inhabits all the seas of Europe.
The reindeer inhabited France in the Quaternary epoch ; it
was living in Germany in Caesar's time ; it descended yearly
to the Caspian Sea during the lifetime of Pallas. The true
whale used to visit our coast before it was driven away by
man. Finally, at this day, the eider duck builds yearly in
Denmark, ten to fifteen degrees south of the Polar circle.
Thus, in the six species mentioned by Agassiz iis peculiar to
liis Arctic Kingdom, three at least belong equally to his
European Kingdom.

A"as.siz was certaiidy more capable than anyone else of
nicely characterising the region in question, if it had been
possible to do so. He failed, because there is in reality no
such thing as a true Arctic fauna. The cause of this lies in
the extension of more southern fauna, which become im-
poverished as they .advanced northwards, but change their
character very slightly. In reality, this kingdom is broken
up into indei)endent provinces, or ratiier, is connected with
regions situated more to the south, and consequently better
divided. 'J'lie Polar region, says Lacordaire, in speaking of
in.sects, is eharacterised less by the speciality of its products
than by their scarcity. All these facts, again, are the con-
sequence (jf the peopling of the Arctic regions after the
glacial epoch.

It would Reem that ni.ui at least might present at the
pole the homogeneity suj)posed by tiie theory. It is not so,



Agassizs Theory. 167

however, wliatever may be the assertions of Agassiz upon
this subject. " A pecuhar race of man," he says, "live there,
known in America by the name of Esquimaux, elsewhere by
that of Lapps, Samoyedes or Tchouktchis. . . The uniformity
of their characters throughout the whole extent of the Arctic
seas unites them in a striking manner with the fauna with
wliich they are so closely connected."

There are, in these words of Agassiz, grave ethnological
and anthropological errors. The uniformity of characters of
which he speaks does not exist at all. It will suffice to
remind my readers that the Lapps are one of the most
brachyccphalic, and the Esquimaux one of the most dolicho-
cephalic races with which we are acquainted. In fiict, these
two races are so entirely distinct that no anthropologist has
ever dreamt of establishing a connection between them.

As to the Samoyedes and Tchouktchis, they have not
always inhabited the icy lands where we now meet with
them. The former have still a recollection of havinjr come
from the south, and M. de Tchiatchef has discovered the
original stock upon the confines of China. The latter settled
at Behring's Straits but a short time ago to free- themselves
from Russian conquest, against which they had bravely
struggled. They subjugated and absorbed the Yukagiros,
tiieir predecessors. They ditTcr, moreover, equally from
Esquimaux and Lapps.

Thus, in the Arctic Kingdom, where all the most favour-
able conditions for the display of any truth whicii the ideas
of Agassiz may possess are brought together, everything
protests against these ideas. In spite of his vast knowledge,
lie could not characterise it zoologically in a precise manner ;
the special fauna which he admits does not exist ; the
identity of populations which he proclaimed disappears under
the slightest examination.

Finally, the theory which attaches a human race to every
centre of appearance as a local product of that centre, ought
to be rejected by anj-one who sets the least value upon the
results of observation.



CHAPTER XV.

PllOGUESSIVE LOCALISATION OF ORGANISED BEINGS.— CENTRES
OF APPEARANCE. — ORIGINAL LOCALISATION OF MAN.

I. An eminent man may draw incorrect conclusions from
the existence of centres of appearance without their existence
being any the less real. Unconnected with animal or vege-
table centres, the human races might have their own ;"man
miMit have come into existence wherever we meet with him.
But, before we accept this original cosmopolitanism, we must
assure ourselves that it subjects man to general laws. Now
we shall see that this hypothesis is, on the contrary, at
variance with all general fsicts presented by plants as well as
aiiiinals.

II. Lot us first prove that no animal or vegetable species
inhabits, as man does, almost the entire globe.

The assertion of Ad. de CandoUe could not be more
precise as far as plants are concerned. " No phanerogamous
l)Iant," he say.<, " is distributed over the entire surface of the
earth. There are only eighteen whose area extends to half
the globe. No tree or shrub figures among these plants,
which are so widely distributed." This latter remark belongs
to an order of considerations whicli we shall meet with
again.

Being unable to enter into an oxaiuination of all the; facts
which art" otVered by the various classes of the Animal
Kingdom frutn this point of view, I shall confine myself to
a few details upon bir^ls and mammals.

We should expect to find tlie former presenting very ex-
tensive areas of habitati(jn by reason of their mode of loco-
motion. It is, in fact, among them tliat we find some of the



Progressive Localisation of Organised Beings. 169

species which most deserve the epithet of cosmopolitan.
They do not, however, equal man in this respect.

The stock-dove, the parent stock of our domestic pigeon,
extends from the south of Norway to Madeira and Abyssinia,
from the Shetland Islands to Borneo and Japan ; but it does
not reach as far as either the equator or the polar circle ; and
it is wanting both in America and Polynesia.

The fulvous vulture is found in all the temperate regions
of the old world, crosses the equator in Africa and descends
as far as the Cape. But we do not meet with it either in our
polar regions, in America or in Polynesia.

The peregrine falcon has perhaps of all animals the widest
area. It is found in America, as also in all the warm or
temperate regions of the old world. It is supposed to exist
in Australia, but we do not meet with it either in Polynesia
or in the polar regions.

Among mammals, whales, on account of their immense
powers of locomotion and the continuity of seas, would seem
to be adapted to true cosmopolitanism. This, however, is not
the case. They are almost all confined within relatively very
limited areas, and rarely pass beyond their customary boun-
daries. Commodore Maury regarded the equatorial sea as
forming an invincible obstacle to their passage from one
hemisphere to the other. Two exceptions have, however,
been observed to this rule. A rorqual {Mcgajjtera lonrji-
tnana) and a SlhahUus latlceps are said to have crossed
this barrier, and to have passed from our seas to those of
the Cape and of Java. These exceptions might easily be
explained by various accidental circumstances. Supposin^i^
however we were to accept them as testifying an exceptional
relative cosmopolitanism, we still have the fact that they
have never been met with in the Pacific Ocean.

With the exception of whales, we shall find nothing at all
resembling cosmopolitanism. Setting a.side the whole of
Oceania, we only find, as common to both the Old and the
New World, two or three ruminants, perhaps a bear, a fox
and a wolf. All these species are, moreover, more or less



170 The Human Species.

polar, and arc wanting in the central regions of the two
worlds. Finally, there is not one species of cheiroptera or
quadrumana which is indigenous both in America and the
Old World.

Beyond those species which man has disseminated by
making them follow his migrations, animals and plants
evidently occupy their natural area, wherein lies the centre
from which they have spread. We see that even after this
dispersion none of them have acquired an area of habitation
Avhich can be compared to that of man.

The admission that the human species appeared in every
place in which it is found, attributing to it an original cos-