The Press.
London, England, 1854-08-26 00:00:00

AUGUST 26, 1854.

disputation in the forum, but in the discussion
of sublime subjects we ought surely expect
to meet with the serenity of the groves of the
academy.
- - -

-- -
The discussion of the unity of the human
species is treated in this work with most
offensive levity. It would be a pity if writers
on ethnology should follow the tone adopted
by these American authors, as geology for
several years suffered in popular estimation
from the irreverent tone employed by some of
its least-distinguished expounders. None but
a profound Bebraist (the very rarest kind of
scholar) is competent to enter critically upon
certain portions of the Old Testament. The
sacred books ware given to man for the sub-
limest of all purposes—his spiritual nurture—
and it is only a grovelling nature that can enter
on their mysterious study with no more
reverence than if they were catechisms of
ephemeral knowledge. False philosophers
might just as well object to the Old Testament
because it did not equal " Pinnoek's Geogra-
phy " iu the nomenclature of places, as because
it did not present generalised views of ethno-
logy. " There are men," says a German, " who
" think of the sun only as a superior kind of
4‘ street•torch," and there are conceited " in-
quirers" who handle the Bible as if it were
a collection of obsolete lectures from a me-
chanics institute in Palestine.

Turning from the irreligious character of
some portions of this work, we may observe of
its contents that what Abernethy said of
phrenology is strictly applicable to its general
character. "It has much that is new and
" much that is true, but the new is not true
" and the true is not new." For example,
there is a lengthy communication from Pro-
fessor Agassiz opening in the following
style :

There is one feature in the physical history of mankind
which has been entirely neglected by those who have
studied this subject, viz., the natural relations between the
different types of man and the animals and plants
inhabiting the same regions. The sketch here presented
is intended to supply this deficiency, as far as it is possible
in a mere outline delineation, and to show that the
boundaries within which the different natural combinations
of animals are known to be circumscribed upon the
surface of our earth 'coincide with the natural range of
distinct types of man. Such natural combinations of
animals circumscribed within definite boundaries are
called fauntr, whatever be their home—land, sea, or river.
►mong the animals which compose the fauna of a country
we find types belonging exclusively there, and not occurring
elsewhere ; such are, for example, the ornithorhynchus of
New Holland, the sloths of America, the hippopotamus of
Africa, and the walruses of the antics : others, which have
only a small number of representatives beyond the fauna
which they specially characterise, as, for instance, the
marsupials of New Holland, of which America has a few
species, such as the opossum ; and again others which
have a wider range, such as the bears, of which there are
distinct species in Europe, Asia, or America, or the mice
and bats, which are to be found all over the world, except
in the arctics. That fauna will, therefore, be most easily
characterised which possesses the largest number of dis-
tinct types, proper to itself, and of which the other animals
have little analogy with those of neighbouring regions, as,
for example, the fauna of New Holland.

Professor Agassiz states nothing new to us
in the above passage, for a variety of British
writers have treated of this distribution of
man over the globe in relation to the animals
of particular realms. We cannot show more
conclusively the general character of this
work than by extracting the ethnological
creed of pne of its principal contributors, Dr.
Nott:—

1. That the surface of our globe is naturally divided into
several zoological provinces, each of which is a distinct
centre of creation, possessing a peculiar fauna and flora ;
and that every species of anima and plant was originally
assigned to its appropriate province.
2. That the human family offers no exception to this
general law, but fully conforms to it; mankind being
divided into several groups of races, each of which
constitutes a primitive element in the fauna of its peculiar
province.

3. That history affords no evidence of the tiansforma-
ton of one type into another, nor of the origination of a
new and permanent type.
4. That certain types have been permanent through all
recorded time. and despite the most opposite moral and
physical influences.
5. That permanence of type is accepted by science as
the surest test of specific character.
6. That certain types have existed (the same as now) in
and around the valley of the Nile from ages anterior to
84410 years a. c., and consequently long prior to any alpha-
betic chronicles, sacred or profane.
i. That the ancient Egyptians had already classified
mankind, as known to them, into four races previously to
any date assignable to Moses.