Their hands, their feet, and all their joints, are remarkably small. Their cheek-bones are high and prominent, and with the narrow pointed chin form nearly a triangle. The nose is, in some, remarkably flat, in others considerably raised. The color of the eye is a deep chestnut; and the eye-lids, at the extremity next the nose, instead of forming an angle, as in Europeans, are rounded into each other exactly like those of the Chinese, to whom, indeed, in many other points, they bear a physical resemblance that is sufficiently striking. Their teeth are beautifully white. The color of the skin is that of a yellowish brown, or a faded leaf, but very different from the sickly hue of a person in the jaundice, which it has been described to resemble: many, indeed, are nearly as white as Europeans. Some of the women, when young, are so well formed, that they might serve as a model of perfection in the human figure. Every joint and limb is rounded and well-turned, and their whole body is without an angle or disproportionate protuberance. Their hands and feet are small and delicately turned; and their gait is not deficient in easy and graceful movements. Their charms, however, are very fleeting."

In more advanced life, these people rank among the ugliest of the human race. Two important considerations are derivable from this description. First, to whatever race they belong, the Hottentots exhibit very striking deviations in form and color from their type; and second, we have here an illustration of a common change of form, even in the same individual, from great symmetry to the most repulsive ugliness, effected by the regular and gradual operation of physical causes. Similar remarks might, perhaps, be properly made upon the Cretins of the Alps and Pyrenees, than whom a greater change in physical confirmation from their true type, can hardly be found in the whole human family.

Among the American tribes, there is much diversity of form as well as color. The Indian of North-America generally has the head elongated, forehead compressed, and a projecting aquiline nose; while many of those of SouthAmerica have a head more approaching to spherical, forehead wide, and a nose somewhat flattened and depressed at the root. There is also a great difference in size between the stout Carib and the dwarfed Chayma. The Chipewayan Indians, north-east of Lake Athabascow, have remarkably broad faces and projecting cheek bones. The Copper, Hare and Dog-Ribbed Indians, have some resemblance to them. The natives on Prince William's Sound are distinguished by larger heads, broad flat faces, and hooked noses.

In the Mongolian race, there is a wide difference in feature and general size between the Esquimaux and Tartars, though they may be connected by intervening tribes. In

the Alentian Islands, between the North-West Coast and Kamschatka, the natives partake of the features of both. The Hungarians and the Ostiaks of the Obi are very different, morally and physically, and yet have an evident affinity from physiognomy and language. The Tchutchis, in the north-east of Asia, are said by Pennant to be of robust and fine form, yet their language is very similar to that of the Esquimaux, and they are supposed by Dr. Morton to have emigrated from this continent. The Esquimaux have been deemed by some to be Mongolians, by others to belong to the American race, which would seem to afford evidence of their resemblance to both. The Mongolians themselves have been said strikingly to resemble our Aborigines. Ledyard, in a letter to Jefferson, written from Siberia, says:

"I shall never be able, without seeing you in person, and perhaps not then, to inform you how universally and circumstantially the Tartars resemble the Aborigines of America."

M. Antemony, who, in the last century, accompanied the Russian embassy to China, says:

"From all that I have heard and read of the inhabitants of Canada, there is no people that more resembles the Tunguses."

In the Caucasian variety, equally striking differences are presented in the Hindoo, Scythian and Arabian branches. Mr. Lawrence says, "that the tribes among the Caucasians are more numerous than in any other." Again, "whether we consider the several nations, or the individuals in each, bodily differences are much more numerous in the highly civilized Caucasian variety than in either of the other divisions of mankind." †

We have now gone over Lecture I. in detail, with the intention of omitting no essential part of our author's argument, as well for the purpose of escaping any imputation of an attempt at evasion, as of examining his qualifications for the task he has assumed, although the various topics of discussion are thereby brought forward in a disconnected and

The inhabitants of Canada may perhaps refer to the Esquimaux. We may here observe, that we have read Dr. Morton's remarks on the Mongolian theory, who strongly argues against it, but we must state, although the opinion of such as we can have but little weight against the decision of so able and distinguished an Ethnographer, that we are not yet satisfied with the evidence against it.

+ Lectures on Physiology, Zoology, and the Natural History of Man. pp. 442-475.

desultory manner. Lecture II. is characterized by the same infirmities as the first, though in some respects it is more ably elaborated and contains some interesting facts. As we have already trespassed inordinately, we shall briefly consider the remaining subjects in the order presented by the lecturer, merely to show the defects of his argumentation, without examining every objectionable passage that may occur.

The first topic is the "Physical Differences" of the Caucasian and Negro. We must now beg the reader to refer back to what we have said on the discrimination of species. If there were two or three races of men only, separated from each other by dissimilar and permanent characteristics, the argument for their distinct origin would be much more available. But since there is a regular and imperceptible gradation from the pure white, and the regular features of the Caucasian, to the jet black and the abnormal contour of the Ethiopian by transitions that defy all definition, we can have nothing in physical characters upon which to found a certain distinction of species. This fact, with the parallel case of well known and remarkable varieties of species in the lower orders of animals and among vegetables, has so puzzled some Naturalists, that they have adopted the theory of there being no such thing as species in nature, but that all the varieties are only developments from some primitive type. Dr. N. has all along kept out of sight the intervening forins, and held up to our view in ugly contrast, the European and Ethiopian types, by which process his argument acquires a speciousness and force that do not belong to it. This "grave question" is not to be settled by remarking only the extreme physical differences, but by giving due importance also to the remarkable resemblances that occur between the several races. These enter equally into the elements of the problem, and it is neither philosophical nor just to leave them out. In a note (p. 24.) our author has barely alluded to the variation and approximation of the several races, but as if it were a matter of no moment to the question, as if it were such a far outlying fact as to have no intimate affinity with the subject. He allows the fact, but says,-"when you compare extremes the argument fails." Now it is because these extremes are connected by a complete and regular series of intermediate forms, that his argument fails entirely. Suppose he should

adopt the same line of argument in regard to the dog, sheep, ox, etc., will Naturalists feel bound to allow specific difference on account of the extremes? Will they consent to be told, that their argument for the unity of the species fails for such a reason? If the varieties of the human race are distinct species, let our author define them, and we pledge ourselves to furnish the links, which shall unite them by characters derived from his own diagnoses, if he will give them correctly. All attempts have thus far failed, and ever must fail from the necessities of the case. They cannot even be defined as varieties, in such a way, as to include all and only the individuals in a given race. The best authorities on this subject, are Blumenbach, Lawrence, Cuvier and Pritchard. The first two maintain five primary divisions of mankind; the last two, three divisions. All have met with difficulties in the attempt to arrange a complete and certain scheme in the fact, that the normal types are connected closely with one another by abundant forms, which blend the whole in one. But Dr. Nott has imposed an easy task upon himself, which no Naturalist ever thought of, in noticing only the extremes, and omitting all consideration of the varying forms which constitute the essential difficulties of the question. These difficulties are well illustrated in the different modes of classification; some assuming one species, some three, some five, and even fifteen; others three or more varieties, and all characterized by different arrange ments of the tribes of the human family, and by very different essential characters; so that one system arises only to be rejected by the next as incomplete and unsatisfactory. Cuvier, whose judgment in this matter, was probably equal to that of any writer who has yet appeared, divides the human race into three varieties. He classes the Malay as only the subdivision of a variety. Notwithstanding his profound knowledge of Zoology, and of Anatomy human and comparative, he could find no sufficient characters for specific distinction between the Caucasian and Negro, either in color, form, or anatomical differences.

Dr. Nott, however, supposes that he discovers a sufficient ground of specific distinction in the smaller head of the Negro, narrower forehead, projecting upper jaw, the teeth pointing "obliquely forward," thicker and denser bones of the head, longer arm and "compressed chest;" in "the bones and muscles of the pelvis, the flat long thighs, and the for

ward bend of the knee." "The shape of the shin bone, calf, foot and heel, are familiar to you all." (pp. 23, 24.) This enumeration is founded on peculiarities which are far from being universal, and which are found more or less in the other races, and therefore are not reliable characters for specific distinction. We think we are not mistaken in asserting, that each of them is found in the white race. They are often very slight, and some of them frequently not found at all in various tribes of Negroes. With the exception of the character derived from the teeth,* he has mentioned no important differential circumstance, and in respect to these organs, he has made the singular mistake of speaking of them in the aggregate, when he should have limited his remark to the incisors. These only project somewhat in the Negroes of western Africa. In those of Mozambique they are vertical. In the Hottentots they are oblique and bent. Here are three forms of incisive teeth in the Negro. What scope is there then for specific distinction, when the same race varies so much in the most essential character he has mentioned. The Egyptian mummies, are said to have the canine teeth undistinguishable from the molars.† The Esquimaux and Greenlanders are more or less subject to the same peculiarity; but are they not Mongolians? We have seen two white men whose teeth were all of the molar form; and were they not Caucasians? It is said, there are some people of Africa who are defective in two canine teeth, one in the upper, and one in the lower jaw. The same has been said of a tribe in Peru. But if any one would fully satisfy himself of the insufficiency of this character in the Negro, he has only to examine a few sets of teeth in the unmixed Negroes around him, and see if the incisors project enough to hang a doubt upon. We suspect it will be found a general rule in all races, that the incisive teeth vary very little from a line with the plane of the face. The Negro, therefore, or any other, with a projecting upper jaw, will have

* On referring to Morton we find him saying, that their "teeth differ in nothing from those of the old Caucasian nations." If occasional instances, however, of the peculiarity mentioned in the text are found among them, our argument is not at all impaired.

+ In allowing importance to character derived from the teeth, we merely intend to intimate the value of the dental formulæ in Zoology. It will be seen by our subsequent remarks, that we did not intend to attach any importance to the differences observable in the teeth of mankind. If they were of the right kind they could not be available, because neither general nor uniform.