[280] Wilson’s Pre-Historic Man, vol. ii, p. 189.
[281] See Bancroft, vol. iv, p. 262, note, where reference is made to Charnay, Ruines Amér., pp. 32, 45, 97, 103.
[282] The American Migration, by Frederick von Hellwald. Smithsonian Report for 1866, pp. 329, 330.
[283] Jean Lamarck, Philosophic Zoologique, etc., Paris, 1809, 2 vols., and Hist. Nat. des Animaux sans Vertebres, 1815.
[284] See Hæckel, History of Creation, vol. ii, pp. 255–6, and Professor Huxley’s reference to the genus Equus (embracing the horse, ass and zebra from specimens collected by Prof. Marsh). New York Lectures, September, 1876.
[285] Dr. McCosh in Popular Science Monthly, November, 1876, p. 88; Darwin’s Descent of Man, vol. i, p. 192 (New York ed.).
[286] Smithsonian Report, 1866.
[287] Descent of Man, vol. i, p. 188. Also, “The Simiadæ then branched off into two great stems, the new world and old world monkeys, and from the latter, at a remote period, man, the wonder and glory of the universe, proceeded.”—Descent of Man, vol. i, p. 204. Again, “We thus learn that man is descended from a hairy quadruped, furnished with a tail and pointed ears, probably arboreal in its habits and an inhabitant of the old world.”—Descent of Man, vol. ii, p. 372.
[288] History of Creation, (N. Y. ed.), 1876, vol. ii, p. 318.
[289] “Nowhere can lines of demarcation be so clearly drawn, so imperceptibly do the families of mankind blend at their circumferences. The various classifications which have been attempted are so many proofs of unity of origin; and their confliction shows the fallacy of the theory of diversity. * * * * We cannot admit that mankind can have diversity of origin while so united by one great plan. If a species or variety of the genus homo sprang up in Europe and another in America by agency of conditions existing in those localities, it would be beyond probability that they should both be formed on the same plan.”—H. Tuttle’s Origin and Antiquity of Physical Man Scientifically Considered, pp. 34–5. Boston, 1866, 12mo.