a native of pure blood.

Have subterfuges or precautions been necessary to form
these unions and to insure the fertility of the offspring?
Quite the contrary. The tyranny of the Whites, the crimes
of slavery, afford quite sufHcient proof that in this case fer-
tility was not dependent upon circumstances, but simply
\ipon the physical connections existing between all men
from the lowest of the Negi-oes to the first of the Whites.

Has such facility, such certainty as this been experienced
in the ])r(Kluction of chabins and leporides ?

If anothtT proof were necessary of the facility with which
human grouj)s intercross, it n)ight be found in one of those
testimonies the value of which is undisputed because they
give the result of a daily experience. In l.Sfil, the Cali-
fornian IcgiHlature declared that any white person convicted
of having cohabited witli or married a Negro, Mulatto,
Chinese or Indian, had fi>rfeited all his rights, and became



Unity of tJic I Indian Species. Sj

subject to all the constitutional incapacities imposed upon
men of colour. The local press announced very plainly that
the object of this measure was the prevention of the fusion
and amalgamation of the races.

The Californian legislature acted on this occasion like the
proprietor of a Hock of pure breed which he is anxious to
keep free from all mixture. It was even more severe,
ejecting from legal society, not only the offspring of the
cross, but also the transgressing parents of the white race.

Do not our breeders take similar precautions in the case
of races only, and not in the case of species ?

Far from being sterile, unions between human groups
apparently the most distinct are sometimes more fertile
than those between individuals taken from the same
group. " Hottentot women," says Le Vaillant, " with
husbands of their own race have three or four children.
With Negroes this number is tripled, and it is still further
increased with Whites." M. Hombron, during four years
which he spent in Brazil, Chili and Peru, studied this
phenomenon in r. large number of families. " I am able
to state," he says, " that unions of Whites with American
women have given the liighest average of births. Next
come the Negro and Negress. And thirdly the Negio
and the American woman." Unions between Americans
themselves gave the lowest average.

Thu.s, the maximum of fertility is here presented in a case
which would constitute a hybridisn> in the opinion of poly-
geni.sts ; the minimum is exhibited between individuals of
the same group, and it is with the woman belonging to the
latter, that, owing to the cross, the maximum is obtained.

These facts are significant. In no case of crossing be-
tween species ha.s fertility been observed to increa.se; on
the contrary it is almost always drminished, and often, as
we have seen above, in an immense proportion. Crossings
l>etween races have alone presented facts analogous to those
mentioned i)y Hombron and Le Vaillant.

III. Thu.s, in every ca.se crossings between human groups
5



88 The Human Species.

exhibit the phenomena ch.aracteristic of mongrels and never
those of hybrids.

Therefore, these human groups, liowever different they
may be, or appear to be, are only races of one and the same
species and not distinct species.

Therefore, there is but one hunmn species, taking this
term species in the acceptation employed when speaking of
animals and plants.

IV. Anyone who refuses to accept these conclusions must
either deny all the facts of which it is the necessary conse-
quence, or reject the method employed in the examination
and appreciation of these facts.

But these facts are borrowed entirely either from scientific
experiments, made without any discussion or controversy by
men of the highest authority, or drawn from the innumerable
experiments which are daily practised by agi'iculturalists,
horticulturalists, and breeders. It is therefore very difficult
to deny them.

As to the method, it is evident tliat it rests entirely upon
the identity of the general laws governing all organised and
living beings. Few true men of .science will, I am sure,
refuse to admit such a starting point as this.

Now I wish that candid men, who are free from party-
Rpirit or prejudices, would follow me in this view, and study
t'oT themselves all these facts, a few of which I have only
touched upon, and I am perfectly convinced that they will,
with the great men of whom I am only the disciple, — with
Linnxus, Kuffon, Lamarck, Cuvicr, Geoffroy, Humboldt and
Muller, arrive at the conclusion that (dl men helonfj to the
same species, aud that there is but one species of man.



BOOK II.

ORHJIN OF THE HUMAN SPECIES.



CHAPTER X.



ORIGIN OF SPRCIHS. — HYPOTHESES OF TRAXSMUTATIOX. —
DAinVINlSM.

I. The unity of the human race raises some general questions,
and entails consequences wliich we must now examine.

The first question which is sug-gcsted to the mind is evi-
dently that of ontjin. "Without abandoning the strictly
scientific aspect of tiie subject, that is to say, confining
ourselves to the results of experiment and observation, can
we explain the appearance on our globe of a being which
forms a kingdom by itself ? I do not hesitate to reply in
the negative.

Let us admit at starting that we cannot consider sepa-
rately the question of the human origin. Whatever may be
the- cause or causes which preside over the birth or the
• levelopmcnt of the organic kingdom, it is to them that the
origin of all organised and living bodies must be traced.
The similarity between all the essential phenomena which
they exhiltit, the identity of the general laws which govern
them, render it impossible to suppose that it can be other-
wise. Tiic problem then of tiie origin of mankind becomes
identical with that oT all animal and vegetable species.

11. This problem has been approached very frequently and
li\ iiiaiiv methods. But here we can only take into account



90 T/ic Iliiman Species.

the attempts which have been made in the name of science.
Nor can these possess any interest for us nntil the time
when it was at least possible to make a clear statement
of the question, whicli was impossible as long as no clear
definition had been given of organic species. In an historic
account of the attempts which have been made to solve the
([uestion, it is useless, therefore, to go further back than Ray
and Tournefort. The publication of Maillot in 174;8 is the
first attempt which deserves passing attention.

I do not intend to repeat here the account which I have
given elsewhere of the different theories proposed by that
talented author, by Butfon, Lamarck, Et. Geoffrey St.-Hilaire,
Bory de St.-Vincent, and by Naudin, Gaudry, Wallace, Owen,
G abler, Kolliker, Haeckel, Filippi, Vogt, Huxley, and Mme.
Royer. They all have this point in common ; they connect
the origin of the more highly developed species with trans-
mutations undergone by inferior species. But there the
resemblance ceases, and their theories frequently differ
entirely on all other points. In short, their ideas may be
arranged in two principal groups according as their authors
favour a vapid or a gradual transmutation. The former
admit tiie suddi-ii appearance of a new type produced by a
being entirely dilfereiit : according to them the first bird
came from the c<fg of a reptile. The latter maintain that
the modifications are always gradual, that between one
species and another a number of links have ir.tervened
which unite the two extremes. They consider that types
arc only multiplifd slowly, and by a j)rogressive diffei'en-
tiation.

In reality the first of these two theories ha.s never been
stated in stich a manner as to form a real doctrine ; it has
never fornu'd a school. 1'he philosojjhers who pnjmoted it
confined them.selves mo.jt fre(|uently to pointing out, in a
general manner, the poHslbi/ifi/ of the phenomenon, while
they attril)Uted it to some accident. At most they invoke
in aid of this possibility, some analogies borrowed fVoni the
history of (»rdiiiarv individual development, from tiiat of



Hypotheses of Transimitalion. 91

alternate generation, or of hyper-metamorphosis ; they pro-
duce no definite fact in justification of their assertions.

With tlie exception perhaps of the iiypothesis of M. Naudin,
which we shall presently discuss, all these theories which
favour a rapid transmutation deserve a still graver reproach,
that, namely, of neglecting the great general facts exhibited
by the organic kingdom. An explanation of the multiplica-
tion and the succession of principal or secondary types l)y
some hypothesis is not sufficient. Special account must be
taken of the relations which connect these typos, of the
order which rules the whole and which has been maintained
from remote geological periods through all the revolutions of
the globe, and in spite of changes in fauna and tlora.

Accident, without rule or law, when invoked as the imme-
diate cause of special transmutations, is obviousl}' incapable of
explaining this important fact ; it gives no explanation what-
ever of the generality of fundamental types, and of the direct
or lateral affinities which exist between their derivatives.

It is different with the theories which favour gradual
transmutation. They deal with all these important questions,
and give a more or less plausible solution of them. They
start from a certain number of principles whose consequences
more or le.ss explain the whole question and many of its
details. In a word, they constitute genuine doctrines and it
is but natural that they should have gained a certain number
of adherents.

Unforttmately these theories all have the same radical
fault. They agree with a certain number of important facts,
connected es.sentially with the morphology of beino^ ; but
they arc in direct contradiction with the fundamental phe-
nomena of general physiology, which are no less general or
fixed than the former. This contradiction is not evidt-nt at
first sight. This is the rea.son why these doctrines have
influenced not only the public at large, but even men of
the highest intellect, whose .sole error con.sists in their
having allowed themselves to consider one siile of the
question only.



92 The Human Species.

All these theories liavc been consolidated into the doctrine
which rightly bears the name of Darwin. At the hands of
this illustrious naturalist, the hypothesis of gradual trans-
mutation has assumed a force and appearance of truth
which it never possessed before. Doubtless, long before
Darwin, Lamarck had formulated his laio of heredity and
his hnv of development of organs, to which the E]jglish
naturalist has added nothing ; M. Naudin had compared
natural selection to artificial selection; Eticnnc Geoftroy
8t.-Hilaire had promulgated the principle of the balance of
organs; Serres and Agassiz had recognized in embryogenic
phenomena the representation of the genesis of beings. But
by taking as a starting point the struggle for existence ; by
explaining in this manner selection; by fixing the results of
heredity ; by replacing the 'pre-cstahliiilced laics of Lamarck
by the laws of divergence, continuity, itermanent characters
and o{ finite heredity ; by giving by these means an explana-
tion of the adaptation of beings to all the conditions of exist-
ence, the ccrpaasive jyoicer of some, the localisation of others,
the successive modifications of all, under the dominion of the
hnvs of compensation, economy and of correlation of
increase ; by applying these facts to the past, present and
future of animate creation, Darwin has formed a complete
and systematic theory, the whole, and often the details, of
which it is impo.ssible not to admire.

I imderstand the fascination exercised by this profound and
ingenious concoption, which is supported by immense know-
lc«lgi', and eniioblcil by his loyal honesty. I should doubtless
have yielded as so many others have done, if I had not long
understood that all questions of this kind depend espcrially
upon physi«»lf)gy. Ncnv, my attention once arouseil, 1 found
no difliculty in recognising the point at which the eminent
author <|uits the ground of reality and enters upon that of
inadinissibh! hypothesis.

I have thought it right to pu})lish my criticisms upon the
theory of transmutation, and upon Darwinism in particular.
I wa.s authorised to do so by the nuinerous atta(;ks which



Hypotheses of Transvintation. 93

liuve often been made, in no measured terms, against what I
consider to be the truth, and against every opponent of the
new theory. But while refuting theories I have always
respected the authors and done justice to their work. I have
([noted the good as well as the bad, and have always held
aloof from the ardent atul lamentable polemics raised by
transmutation.

I have had great ])leasiire, when occasion has offered, in
defending the splendid researches made by Darwin in the
natural sciences. For this very reason, and at the risk of
being considered narrow minded, enslaved to prejudices and
unable to leave an old groove, etc., etc., I consider myself
entitled to attack Darwinism, if I employ none but the
weapons of science.

III. There are some points in Darwinism which are per-
fectly unassailable. We may consider as the most important
the 8irn(j(jle for existence, and selection which is the result of
it. It is not the first time, certainly, that the former has
been established, and the important part it has to play in the
general harmony of the Avorld lia.s at least been partly com-
])rehended. I will here only recall to the mind of my readers
the fables of La Fontaine. But no one had insisted, as
Darwin has done, upon the enormous disproportion which
exists between the number of births and the number of
living indiviiluals ; no one had investigated, as he has, the
general causes of death or of survival which produce the
final result. By pointing out the fact that each species tends
to increase in number in geometrical progi-cssion, which is
proved by the number of offspring to -which a single mother
can give birth during the whole course of her life, the English
n.ituralist makes it easy to comprehend the intensity of the
struggles, direct or indirect, which are undergone by animals
and plants against one another and the surrountling world.
It is, most certainly, entirely owing to this struggle for
existence, that the whole world, in a few years, is not overrun
l)y some species, or the rivers and ocean filled in the same
manner.



94 The llunian Species.

It is no less evident to me that the survivors cannot
always owe their preservation to a combination of happy
chances. Among the immense majority the victory can only
be due to certain special advantages, ■which are not enjoyed
by those who succumb. The result of this sirucffjle for
existence is, then, the destruction of all the inferior indi-
viduals, and the preservation of those individuals only which
possess some kind of superiority. This is what Darwin calls
Natural Selection.

. I can scarcely understand how these two phenomena can
be doubted or even denied. The}' do not constitute a theory,
but are facts. Far from being repugnant to tlie mind, they
seem inevitable, the consequences follow with a sort of neces-
sity and fatality resembling the laws of the inorganic world.

The term selection- jrivcs rise to criticism, and the hmiruajje
of Darwin, at times too figurative, renders plausible the
objection of those who have reproached him with attributing
to nature the part of an intelligent being. The word clnni-
natioii would have been more e.\act. But much of this
sliouM have been prevented by tlic explanations given by
the aiithor. Besides, it is evident that the struggle for
existence entails the elimination of individuals who are
le.ss able to sustain it, and that the result exactly resembles
that produced by unconscious human selection. Then
heredity intervenes among beings wliich are free as well as
among tho.se which we bring up in captivity. It preserves
and accumulates the progri.ss made by each generation in
any direction, and thv liiial residt is the production in the
organism of certain iijipnciablc anatomical and phy.siological
nioililiciitions.

'J'Im; words 8Uj)cri<ir and inferior shouUl here oidy be
taken as relative to the conditions of existence in which
animals and vegetables are placed. ]n other words the indi-
vidual which is best adapted to those conditions, will be
Hujjerior and will con(|uer in the struggle for existence. For
instance, the black rat and the mouse have both to struggle
against the brown rat whicji entered France during the last



Ilypolhcscs of Transmutation. 95

century from the banks of the Volga. The black rat was
almost as large and as strong as his adversary, but less
ferocious and less prolific. It has been exterminated in spite
of refuges which arc inaccessible to its enemy. The mouse,
which is much weaker, but at the same time much smaller,
can retire into holes which are too small for the brown rat ;
it has therefore survived the black rat.

Is it possible to admit that selection and heredity act
etjually upon that indefinable soriiething which is connected
with the rudimentary intelligence and instincts of animals ?
With. Darwin I unhesitatingly reply in the affirmative.
With animals, as with man, all the individuals of the same
species have not an equal amount of intelligence and do not
invariably possess the same aptitudes ; certain instincts, like
certain forms, are capable of modification. Our domestic
animals furnish a number of examples of these facts. The
wild ancestors of our dogs were certainly not accustomed to
point at game. When left to themselves and placed under
new conditions of existence, animals sometimes change their
manner of life entirely. Beavers, from being disturbed by
hunters, have dispersed ; they have now abandoned the con-
struction of their lodges and dig out long btirrows in the
banks of rivers. The struggle for existence must have been
lavourablc to the first discoverers of this new method of
escaping from their persecutors, and natural selection, while
preserving them and their descendants, ha.s converted a
sociable and constructive animal into a solitary and burrow-
ing one.

Up to this point it is evident that I agree in all that
harwinlijuj sjiid on the struggle for existence and natural
selection. I disagiee with him when he attributes to them
the power of modifying organised beings indefinitely in a
given direction, so that the direct descendants of one species

rm another species distinct from the first,

IV. The fundamental cause of the disagreement arises
evidently from the fact that Darwin had forme<l no clear
conception of the .sense which he attributed to the word



9^3 The Hitman Species.

species. I have been unable to find in any of ln.s works a
single precise statement on this point. The accusation is
more severe from being brought with justice against an
author who claims to have discovered the origin of species.

More frequently Darwin seems to adhere to a purely
morphological idea, which is also somewhat vague. He
often opposes species and race, which he also calls variety,
l)ut without ever stating clearly what he understands by one
or the other. He endeavours, moreover, to bring them to-
gether as closely as possible, though occasionally recognising
some of the points which separate them. " The species," he
says in drawing one of his conclusions, " must be treated as
an artificial combination which is necessary for convenience."
His disciples have followed him faithfully in this direction,
and those who use the most exj)licit language on this sub-
ject, join their master in declaring that a species is only a
kind of conventional group similar to those which are used
in cla.s.sification. As for races, they are only species under-
g(jing transmutation. Now from what he has already learnt,
short though the study has been, the reader knows, I hope,
to which view he should adhere, and understands to what
confusions such a vague kind of theory must lead.

In spite of the inevitable uselessness of a discussion of this
kind, let us follow our adversaries into this unstable ground,
and see whether morphological facts furnish their theory
with the least probability.

Darwin him.sclf, on .several occasions, states that the result
of selection is essentially to adapt animals and plants to the
coiifliliotis of existence in which they have to live. Upon
this point I agree with hini entirely. If, howevm*, harmony
is once cstabli.slicd l)ctween orjianised beings and the condi-
tions of life, the struggle for existence and selection could
oidy result in consulidating it ami coiisciiucnflv their action
is preservative.

If the conditions of life change tliey will again come into
jilay in order to establish a new e»milibriuni, and modifica-
tions more or less maiked will be the result of their action.



Hypotheses of Transmutation. 97

I)Ut will these modifications be sufficiently great to give rise
to a new species ? The following fact will serve as a reply.

At the present time there is a stag in Corsica, which from
its form has been compared to the badger-hound : its antlers
ditVrr from those of European stags. Those who confine
themselves to morphological characters, will assuredly con-
sider this as a distinct species, and it has often been
considered to be so. Now BnlTon preserved a fawn of this
pretended species, and placed it in his park ; in four years it
became both larger and finer than the French stags which
were older and considered finer grown. Moreover, the
formal evidence of Herodotus, Aristotle, Polybius and Pliny
attest that in their time there were no stags either in Corsica
or Africa. Is it not evident that the stag in question had
been transported from the continent to the island ; that
under the new conditions the species had undergone tempo-
rary morphological modification, though it had lost none of
its power of resuming its primitive characters, when placed
in its primitive conditions of life ?

Are we, then, to conclude that in time nature could have
completed the action, and entirely separated the Corsican stag
iVom its original stock ? We may answer in the negative, if
any weight is to be attached to experience and observation.

S])ecies partially subject to the rule of man furnish a
number of facts which enable us to compare the power of
natural forces, when abandoned to their own action, with that
of man in modifying a .'specific type. In all artificial races
varieties are infinitely more numerous, 'more varied and
more marked than wild races and varieties. Now the result
of these transmutations of organisms has only consisted in
the formation of races, never in the formation of a nevj
!<prcii:s. Darwin himself accepts this conclusion implicitly
iu his magnificent work on pigeons; for when speaking of
the rttccs of jii'ji'oris he only says tliat the difference of form
is such that if they had been found in a wild state, wc should
have been com])elled to make at least three or four genera of
them. The wild rock pigeon.s, the original stock of all our



98 The I/iniian Species.

domestic pigeons, only differ, on tlic contrary, in shades of
colour.

The result is always tlie same, whenever we can compare
the work of nature with our own. When he has anything to
do Avith any vegetable or animal species, tnan always changes
its character, sometimes, after a lapse of some years, the
change being much greater than that ])roduced by nature
since the species first came into existence. The effect of the
conditions of life {milieu), of which we will speak presently,
the struggle for existence and natural selection understood
as I have just described it, the power which man possesses of
directing natural forces and changing their resultant, etusily
explain this superiority, of action.

Consequently, without leaving the domain of facts, and
only judging from what we know, we can say that mor-
phology itself justifies the conclusion that one species lias
never produced another by means of derivation. To admit
the contrary is to axil in the tinknoioi, and to substitute a
jiossihilify for the results of experience.

Physiology justifies a still stronger assertion. Upon this
ground also man is shown to be as powerful a:5 nature, and
for the same reasons. With our cultivated plants and
domestic animals, it is not only the j)rimitive form which has
undergone change, but certain functions also. If we had