However, it is certain problems which constitute the higher branches of ethnology; and it is to the investigation of these that the department of ethnological dynamics is subservient. Looking backwards we find, first amongst the foremost, the grand questions as to—
- 1. The unity or non-unity of the species.
- 2. Its antiquity.
- 3. Its geographical origin.
The unity or non-unity of the human species has been contemplated under a great multiplicity of aspects; some involving the fact itself, some the meaning of the term species.
- 1. Certain points of structure are constant. This is one reason for making man the only species of genus, and the only genus of his order.
- 2. All mixed breeds are prolific. This is another.
- 3. The evidence of language indicates a common origin; and the simplest form of this is a single pair. This is a third.
- 4. We can predicate a certain number of general propositions concerning the class of beings called Human. This merely separates them from all other classes. It does not determine the nature of the class itself in respect to its members. It may fall in divisions and subdivisions.
- 5. The species may be one; but the number of first pairs may be numerous. This is the doctrine of the multiplicity of protoplasts[8].
- 6. The species may have had no protoplast at all; but may have been developed out of some species anterior to it, and lower in the scale of Nature, this previous species itself having been so evolved. In this case, the protoplast is thrown indefinitely backwards; in other words, the protoplast of one species is the protoplast of many.
- 7. The genus Homo may fall into several species; so that what some call the varieties of a single species are really different species of a single genus.
- 8. The varieties of mankind may be too great to be included in even a genus. There may be two or even more genera to an order.
- 9. Many of the present varieties may represent the intermixtures of species no longer extant in a pure state.
- 10. All known varieties may be referable to a single species; but there may be new species undescribed.
- 11. All existing varieties may be referable to a single species; but certain species may have ceased to exist.
Such are the chief views which are current amongst learned men on this point; though they have not been exhibited in a strictly logical form, inasmuch as differences of opinion as to the meaning of the term species have been given in the same list with differences of opinion as to the fact of our unity or non-unity.
These differences of opinion are not limited to mere matters of inference. The facts on which such inferences rest are by no means unanimously admitted. Some deny the constancy of certain points of structure, and more deny the permanent fecundity of mixed breeds. Again, the evidence of language applies only to known tongues; whilst the fourth view is based upon a logical rather than a zoological view of species.
The doctrine of a multiplicity of protoplasts is common. Many zoologists hold it, and they have of course zoological reasons for doing so. Others hold it upon grounds of a very different description—grounds which rest upon the assumption of a final cause. Man is a social animal. Let the import of this be ever so little exaggerated. The term is a correlative one. The wife is not enough to the husband; the pair requires its pair for society’s sake. Hence, if man be not formed to live alone now, he was not formed alone at first. To be born a member of society, there must be associates. This is the teleological[9]—perhaps it may be called the theological—reason for the multiplicity of protoplasts.
Its non-inductive character subtracts something from its value.
The difficulty of drawing a line as to the magnitude of the original society subtracts more. If we admit a second pair, why not grant a village, a town, a city and its corporation? &c.
Again, this is either a primitive civilization or something very like it. Where are its traces? Nevertheless, if we grant certain assumptions in respect to the history of human civilization, the teleological doctrine of the multiplicity of protoplasts is difficult to refute.